Sho v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MONSURU SHO, 11 Case No. 21-08796 BLF (PR) Petitioner, 12 ORDER OF TRANSER; v. TERMINATING PENDING 13 MOTIONS 14 CURRENT OR ACTING FIELD 15 OFFICE DIRECTOR, et al., Respondents. 16 (Docket Nos. 2, 3, 5) 17 18 On November 12, 2021, Petitioner, a detainee of the United States Immigration and 19 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Golden State Annex in McFarland, California, filed a 20 pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. No. 1. 21 Petitioner claims that his prolonged detention without a hearing to determine whether he 22 presents a risk of flight or danger is unconstitutional. Id. at 2. Petitioner has filed a motion 23 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, a motion for appointment of counsel, and an 24 emergency motion for a bond hearing. Dkt. Nos. 2, 3, 5. The matter was reassigned to the 25 Undersigned on November 24, 2021. Dkt. Nos. 7, 8. 26 Failure to afford a bond hearing to an alien on prolonged detention may be grounds 27 for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 704 1 is a flight risk or a danger to the community). Section 2241 allows “the Supreme Court, 2 any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge” to grant writs of habeas corpus 3 “within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). In 1948, relying on the 4 “within their respective jurisdictions” language, the Supreme Court held that personal 5 jurisdiction over a federal habeas corpus petition lies exclusively in the single federal 6 judicial district in which both the custodian of the prisoner and the prisoner reside. Ahrens 7 v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188, 190-91 (1948). In Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 8 484 (1973), however, the Supreme Court held that the literal language of § 2241(a) 9 required “nothing more than that the court issuing the writ have jurisdiction over the 10 custodian. So long as the custodian can be reached by service of process, the court can 11 issue a writ 'within its jurisdiction' requiring that the prisoner be brought before the court… 12 even if the prisoner himself is confined outside the court's territorial jurisdiction.” Id. at 13 495. 14 Although this court may have jurisdiction to hear a petition since the Golden State 15 Annex is managed by the San Francisco Field Office, Braden also makes clear that “venue 16 considerations may, and frequently will, argue in favor of adjudication of the habeas claim 17 in the jurisdiction where the habeas petitioner is confined.” Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 18 864 F.2d 804, 814 (D.C. Cir. 1988); see also McCoy v. United States Bd. of Parole, 537 19 F.2d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 1976) (“Once the custodian of the petitioner is properly served, the 20 question is no longer jurisdictional, but one of the most convenient forum for litigation.”); 21 1 J. S. Liebman, supra, § 10.2(d) at 141 (“Personal jurisdiction is only the first ‘proper 22 forum’ hurdle the petitioner must clear.”). Transfer of a petition to another district court 23 may therefore be in order on grounds of convenience. See Braden, 410 U.S. at 499 n.15; 24 McCoy, 537 F.2d at 966; United States ex rel. Meadows v. New York, 426 F.2d 1176, 1183 25 n.9 (2d Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 941 (1971). Federal courts generally take the 26 position that the district of confinement “is normally the forum most convenient to the 1 || to the district of confinement “in the interests of justice” pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 2 || See id.; see also Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249-50 (9th Cir. 1989) (suggesting that 3 || even where district court has personal jurisdiction over custodian, preferred forum is 4 || district where petitioner is confined). A transfer to the district of confinement on 5 || convenient forum grounds is therefore preferable as long as no undue delay is created. See 6 || Chatman-Bey, 864 F.2d at 814 (“Delay is undesirable in all aspects of our justice system, 7 || but it is especially to be avoided in the sensitive context of habeas corpus.”). 8 Petitioner is being detained by ICE in Kern County, which lies within the venue of g || the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). Therefore, in the interest of 10 || justice and convenience, the preferred forum for this petition is that district and not in this 11 || one. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). Accordingly, this case is TRANSFERRED to the United 2 States District Court for the Eastern District of California as the convenient forum. See 28 E 13 || U.S.C. § 1406(a). S 14 The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the 3 15 || Eastern District of California. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 17 || Dated: _— December 13, 2021 __ heh Lown hermes) 5 18 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. |] pRo-sEWBLFIHC 21008796Sho.tansfer(ED) 26 27