(HC) Thongvilay v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAMOT THONGVILAY, Case No. 1:23-cv-01605-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 v. (Doc. 1) 14 FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO FIELD OFFICE, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner Pamot Thongvilay (“Petitioner”) is a noncitizen detained by co-Respondent 19 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Mesa Verde Detention Center, Bakersfield, 20 California, proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 21 (Doc. 1). Petitioner challenges his continued detention by ICE in the light of an immigration judge’s 22 order on July 12, 2023, to remove Petitioner from the United States. Id. 23 Petitioner filed his petition on November 6, 2023, in the Northern District of California. On 24 November 9, 2023, the assigned magistrate judge in that District ordered the case transferred to the 25 Eastern District of California. (Doc. 2). The magistrate judge found that, because Petitioner is housed 26 in a facility located in the Eastern District of California, “jurisdiction/venue … lies only in the Eastern 27 District of California.” Id. (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) and Lopez- Marroquin v. 28 Barr, 955 F.3d 759 (9th Cir. 2020)). 1 However, in the immigration context, judges within the Northern District of California 2 || recognize an exception to the “bright-line rule” (Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 449-50) that habeas jurisdictic 3 || lies in the district of confinement. Specifically, where a petitioner challenging his immigration 4 || detention is held in federal detention in a non-federal facility pursuant to a contract, he “should sue th 5 || federal official most directly responsible for overseeing that contract facility when seeking a habeas 6 || writ.” Saravia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 1168, 1185 (N.D. Cal. 2017), affd sub nom. Saravia for 7 A.A. v. Sessions, 905 F.3d 1137 (9th Cir. 2018). Numerous cases in the Northern District of Californ 8 || hold that the Field Office Director (FOD) of the San Francisco Field Office (a co-Respondent here) i: 9 || the proper respondent in Section 2241 habeas petitions filed by noncitizens detained in facilities 10 || located in the Eastern District of California — including the facility where Petitioner here is housed. 11 || See Salesh P. v. Kaiser, No. 22-cv-03018-DMR, 2022 WL 17082375, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2022 12 || (collecting cases); Henriquez v. Garland, No. 5:22-cv-00869-EJD, 2022 WL 2132919, at *3 (N.D. 13 || Cal. June 14, 2022) (noting that Mesa Verde is a private facility that falls within the area of 14 || responsibility of the FOD, San Francisco, and as such, that jurisdiction is proper in the Northern 15 || District of California). 16 Because Petitioner desired to seek relief in the Northern District of California and because 17 || courts in that District hold jurisdiction and venue is proper there for immigration detainees asserting 18 || similar claims under similar circumstances as Petitioner, the undersigned concludes that the action 19 || should be returned to the Northern District of California. 20 Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to transfer this case to the United States 21 || District Court for the Northern District of California.! 22 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 | : ) Bo Dated: _ November 16, 2023 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 25 26 27 ' “Because a transfer of venue does not address the merits of the parties’ claims, but simply changes the forum of an action, courts routinely find that it is a non-dispositive matters that is within 28 || magistrate judge’s authority to order without the approval of a district judge.” Boswell v. Foss, No. 20-cv-3469-JAK-PVC, 2020 WL 8619785, at *1 n.1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2020) (collecting cases).