McNeely v. Chappell

Filing 5

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION; DISMISSING C 12-2599 CW (PR) AS DUPLICATIVE; TERMINATING ALL PENDING MOTIONS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 5/25/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/25/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
DOCK McNEELY,

Nos. C 12-1483 CW (PR)
C 12-2599 CW (PR)

4
Petitioner,
5

ORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATION;
DISMISSING C 12-2599 CW (PR)
AS DUPLICATIVE; TERMINATING
ALL PENDING MOTIONS

v.
6
KEVIN CHAPPELL, Warden,
7
Respondent.
8

/

9
On March 23, 2012, Petitioner, a state prisoner incarcerated
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
at San Quentin State Prison, filed McNeely v. Chappell, C 12-1483
11
CW (PR), a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought
12
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the validity of his
13
confinement.

On April 9, 2012, the Court reviewed the petition and

14
ordered the matter transferred to the United States District Court
15
for the Eastern District of California, finding as follows:
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

In 2000, Petitioner sought habeas corpus relief in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of California, challenging the constitutional validity of
his five-year pretrial detention on criminal charges
filed in Sacramento County Superior Court. The Eastern
District denied relief, but the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals found that Petitioner had been denied his
constitutional right to a speedy trial, reversed the
district court and ordered Petitioner’s immediate release
from custody, with prejudice to re-prosecution of the
criminal charges. See McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822,
832 (9th Cir. 2003).
In the instant petition, Petitioner appears to
allege that he was re-arrested by Sacramento police and
currently is imprisoned as a pretrial detainee on the
same criminal charges, in violation of the Ninth
Circuit’s ruling.
A habeas petition by a state pretrial detainee
properly is brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Hoyle v.
Ada County, 501 F.3d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 2007). In a
state containing more than one federal district, the
petition may be filed in either the district of

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

confinement or the district of conviction. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(d). Although each district has concurrent
jurisdiction to entertain the petition, the district
court for the district where the petition is filed “in
the exercise of its discretion and furtherance of justice
may transfer the application to the other district court
for hearing and determination.” Id.
Here, Petitioner is confined within the venue of the
Northern District, but he is challenging the validity of
criminal charges filed against him in the Eastern
District. He maintains that those charges were filed in
violation of the Ninth Circuit’s ruling granting relief
to Petitioner in his previous habeas action filed in the
Eastern District. Consequently, the Court finds that the
petition should be heard in the Eastern District.

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and in
the interest of justice, the Clerk of the Court is
ordered to TRANSFER this action forthwith to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of
California.

12
Order at 1:14-2:20.
13
Petitioner has moved for reconsideration of the Court’s order
14
transferring the petition, arguing the petition properly is brought
15
in the Northern District because he is not challenging the criminal
16
charges against him, but, rather, is challenging his physical
17
confinement.
18
The motion is DENIED.

Petitioner states in the petition that

19
in 2008 he was arrested by the Sacramento County Sheriff’s
20
Department based on erroneous information in the Department’s
21
database that did not reflect accurately the disposition of his
22
prior criminal case.

Although he does not explain the precise

23
grounds for his arrest and current incarceration, his request for
24
habeas relief is based on his contention that his confinement
25
violates the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in his case in McNeely v.
26
Blanas, 336 F.3d 822 (9th Cir. 2003).

As Petitioner has not

27
provided any information that indicates he is incarcerated because
28
2

1

of criminal charges brought, or a criminal conviction obtained, in

2

the Northern District, the Court will not reconsider its prior

3

ruling that the proper venue for this petition is the Eastern

4

District.

5

Petitioner recently filed another habeas petition, McNeely v.

6

Chappell, C 12-2599 CW (PR), which raises the same claims as the

7

petition in C 12-1483.

8

DISMISSED as duplicative.

9

Accordingly, that petition is hereby

CONCLUSION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

11

1.

12
13

Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration in McNeely v.

Chappell, C 12-1483 CW (PR) is DENIED.
2.

The petition filed in McNeely v. Chappell, C 12-2599 CW

14

(PR) is DISMISSED as duplicative.

15

enter judgment in that case and close the file.

16
17
18
19

3.

The Clerk of the Court shall

The Clerk shall TERMINATE all pending motions in both

cases.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 5/25/2012
CLAUDIA WILKEN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3