Cooper

(HC) Raney v. Cooper

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 9, 20242:23-cv-02929California467 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 BRIAN PHILIP RANEY, No. 2:23-cv-2929 CKD P Petitioner, v. ORDER JIM COOPER, Respondent. 16 Petitioner, a California detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 together with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that petitioner is unable to afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). It appears that petitioner has been committed to the California State Hospital pursuant to criminal proceedings occurring in the Superior Court of Sacramento County. Petitioner challenges his commitment, as well as forced medication. Any challenge to petitioner’s commitment must be brought in a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 as that statute provides the exclusive remedy for persons in state custody…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.