Keo v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SOKHEAN KEO, Case No. 24-cv-04280 NC (PR) 12 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER 13 v. 14 CURRENT OR ACTING FIELD 15 OFFICE DIRECTOR, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner, a non-citizen detainee currently confined at the Mesa Verde Detention 19 Center in Bakersfield, California, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 20 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his prolonged detention without a hearing as unconstitutional. 21 Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Petitioner names several Respondents, including the “Current or Acting” 22 Field Office Director of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) 23 Office located in San Francisco. Id. at 3. Petitioner cites several cases filed in the 24 Northern District of California in which judges in the district exercised jurisdiction over 25 similar § 2241 petitions naming the San Francisco Field Officer Director as a respondent. 26 Id. at 3-4. However, the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Doe v. Garland, No. 23-15361, 1 -- F.4th --, 2024 WL 3561360 (9th Cir. July 29, 2024), makes clear that the proper 2 respondent for a § 2241 petition is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being 3 held. In reversing the district court’s decision in Doe, the Ninth Circuit held the district 4 court erred in exercising jurisdiction over the petitioner’s § 2241 petition because he failed 5 to name his immediate custodian as the respondent and filed the petition outside the district 6 of his confinement. Id. at 25. Doe also makes clear that for a § 2241 petition, “jurisdiction 7 lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Id. at 22 (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 8 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004)); see also Lopez-Marroquin v. Barr, 955 F.3d 759, 759-60 (9th 9 Cir. 2020) (applying the district of confinement rule to a § 2241 petition involving a non- 10 citizen’s challenge to his immigration detention). 11 Like the petitioner in Doe, Petitioner is not confined within this district. He also 12 failed to name his immediate custodian as the respondent, and he filed his petition outside 13 the district of his confinement. Thus, under Doe, this Court lacks jurisdiction over 14 Petitioner’s § 2241 petition. Here, the only district that has jurisdiction over the petition is 15 the Eastern District of California, where Mesa Verde Detention Center is located and 16 where Petitioner is currently confined. 17 Where a case is filed in the wrong division or district, the Court “shall dismiss, or if 18 it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could 19 have been brought.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); see also Lopez-Marroquin, 955 F.3d at 760 20 (ordering the transfer of immigrant detainee’s § 2241 petition to the district where the 21 petitioner was confined). Petitioner could have filed this action in the Eastern District as 22 the only district that has jurisdiction over his § 2241 petition, and he could have named the 23 warden or facility administrator of Mesa Verde Detention Center as the respondent. 24 Accordingly, the Court finds that the interests of justice are best served by ordering the 25 immediate transfer of this case to the Eastern District of California, in lieu of dismissal, 26 which would only delay this matter and unduly burden Petitioner. 1 The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire 2 file to the Eastern District of California. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 DATED: August 12, 2024 NATHANAEL M. COUSINS 5 United States Magistrate Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Order of Transfer PRO-SE\NC\HC 2024\04280Keo_transfer(ED) 26