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

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GURMEET SINGH, Case No. 24-cv-03472-RMI 8 Petitioner, ORDER RE: RESPONDENT’S 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS 10 FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, SAN Re: Dkt. Nos. 8, 9 FRANCISCO FIELD OFFICE, UNITED 11 STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 Petitioner, a federal detainee, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 15 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges his prolonged detention by the United States Immigration 16 and Custom Enforcement (ICE) at the Mesa Verde Processing Center in Bakersfield, California. 17 Now pending before the court is Respondent’s motion to dismiss (dkt. 8), seeking dismissal of the 18 petition on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction. Petitioner filed a brief opposition (dkt. 9) 19 and Respondent filed a reply (dkt. 10). For the reasons stated below, the case is transferred to the 20 Eastern District of California. 21 Petitioner names several Respondents, including the Field Office Director of the ICE office 22 located in San Francisco, who is Petitioner’s legal custodian and has the authority to release him. 23 (dkt. 2 at 1-2). Petitioner cites several cases filed in the Northern District of California in which 24 judges in the district exercised jurisdiction over similar § 2241 petitions naming the San Francisco 25 Field Officer Director as a respondent. (Id. at 2). However, the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in 26 Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188 (9th Cir. 2024), makes clear that the proper respondent for a § 27 2241 petition is the warden of the facility where the detainee is being held. In reversing the district 1 jurisdiction over the petitioner’s § 2241 petition because he failed to name his immediate 2 custodian as the respondent and filed the petition outside the district of his confinement. Id. at 3 1199. Doe also makes clear that for a § 2241 petition, “jurisdiction lies in only one district: the 4 district of confinement.” Id. at 1198 (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004)); see 5 also Lopez-Marroquin v. Barr, 955 F.3d 759, 759-60 (9th Cir. 2020) (applying the district of 6 confinement rule to a § 2241 petition involving a non-citizen’s challenge to his immigration 7 detention). 8 Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, Doe applies even though it was decided after Petitioner 9 filed this case. “[I]t is well established that a court generally applies the law in effect at the time of 10 its decision, and that if the law changes while the case is on appeal the appellate court applies the 11 new rule.’’ Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 973 n.21 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Thorpe v. Durham 12 Hous. Auth., 393 U.S. 268, 281 (1969)). 13 Petitioner is confined at the Mesa Verde Processing Center in Bakersfield, California 14 which is located in the Eastern District of California. He failed to name his immediate custodian as 15 the respondent, and he filed his petition outside the district of his confinement. Thus, under Doe, 16 this court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s § 2241 petition. Here, the only district that has 17 jurisdiction over the petition is the Eastern District of California, where the Mesa Verde 18 Processing Center is located and where Petitioner is currently confined. 19 Where a case is filed in the wrong division or district, the court “shall dismiss, or if it be in 20 the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been 21 brought.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); see also Lopez-Marroquin, 955 F.3d at 760 (ordering the 22 transfer of immigrant detainee’s § 2241 petition to the district where the petitioner was confined). 23 Petitioner could have filed this action in the Eastern District as the only district that has 24 jurisdiction over his § 2241 petition, and he could have named the warden or facility administrator 25 of the Mesa Verde Processing Center as the respondent. Accordingly, the court finds that the 26 interests of justice are best served by ordering the immediate transfer of this case to the Eastern 27 District of California, in lieu of dismissal, which would only delay this matter and unduly burden 1 The clerk shall VACATE all pending motions (dkts. 8, 9) and TRANSFER this case to 2 the Eastern District of California. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: September 9, 2024 5 6 ROBERT M. ILLMAN 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 ll a 12 13 14 15 16 € = 17 6 Zz 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28