Sidhu v. Wolf ( 2021 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Baljeet Singh Sidhu, No. CV-20-01189-PHX-MTL 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v. 12 Chad Wolf, et al., 13 Respondents. 14 15 Pending before the Court is Magistrate Judge James F. Metcalf’s Report and 16 Recommendation (“R & R”) (Doc. 24) recommending that the Court grant Respondents’ 17 motion to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of 18 Mississippi. (Doc. 17.) Petitioner did not object to the R & R. For reasons expressed 19 herein, the Court will adopt Judge Metcalf’s recommendation and transfer the case. 20 I. BACKGROUND 21 Petitioner Baljeet Singh Sidhu filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the 22 “Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on June 16, 2020. (Doc. 1.) The same day, he 23 filed an Emergency Motion to Stay Removal to enjoin his removal from the United States 24 while the Petition remained pending. (Doc. 2.) On June 18, 2020, the Court granted in 25 part the Emergency Motion and enjoined Petitioner’s removal from the United States 26 pending further order. (Doc. 5 at 4.) The Court also ordered that “Respondents shall not 27 file a dispositive motion in place of an answer absent leave of Court.” (Id. at 4–5.)1 28 1 Respondents then filed a Motion for Leave to File Dispositive Motion. (Doc. 13.) Magistrate Judge Metcalf granted this motion and ordered Petitioner to respond why the 1 On July 1, 2020, Respondents filed a Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 2 12(b)(3). (Doc. 17.) Respondents argue that venue is not proper in this district because 3 Petitioner is and has been in custody in the Adams County Detention Center in Natchez, 4 Mississippi, since the time he filed the Petition. (Id. at 1–2.) Respondents argue that the 5 case should be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) for improper venue, or 6 alternatively, transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of 7 Mississippi. (Id. at 5–8.) Petitioner filed a response in opposition. (Doc. 23.) Respondents 8 filed a reply on August 17, 2020. (Doc. 22.) 9 Magistrate Judge Metcalf issued the R & R on December 17, 2020. (Doc. 24.) It 10 sets forth a thorough history of Petitioner’s underlying proceedings and an in-depth 11 analysis of the legal issues presented. The R & R concludes, after extensive analysis, that 12 the “district-of-confinement rule applies and jurisdiction over the Petition lies in the 13 Southern District of Mississippi (where Warden Gillis may be served without resort to 14 long-arm service), not this District.” (Id. at 23.) It further finds that transfer of venue 15 under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) or 28 U.S.C. § 1631(a), as opposed to dismissal, is the 16 appropriate relief. (Id. at 24) (“Here neither Respondents nor Petitioner proffer any 17 reason why transfer (at least as opposed to dismissal) is not in the interests of justice. A 18 transfer will save time and resources invested to date in filing, briefing, and (at least 19 arguably) service.”) Finally, the R & R concludes that the Court need not terminate the 20 existing stay of removal (Doc. 5) in effecting the transfer. (Doc. 24 at 25.) 21 The R & R informed the parties that they had “fourteen (14) days from the date of 22 service of a copy of [the R & R] within which to file specific written objections with the 23 Court” and that “[f]ailure to timely file objections to the [R & R] will be considered a 24 waiver of a party’s right to de novo consideration of the issues, and will constitute a 25 waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or 26 judgment entered pursuant to the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.” (Id. at 26) 27 28 case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 16.) Petitioner timely responded. (Doc. 21.) 1 (citations omitted). No party has objected to the R & R as of this date. 2 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 3 A petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 “challenge[s] the 4 manner, location, or conditions of a sentence’s execution.” Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 5 F.3d 861, 864 (9th Cir. 2000). Parties have 14 days from service of the R & R within 6 which to file specific written objections with the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A 7 district court reviews de novo those portions of the report to which an objection is made 8 and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations 9 made by the magistrate judge.” Id. District courts are not required, however, to conduct 10 “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 11 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1220 (D. 12 Ariz. 2003) (accepting, without review, a Report and Recommendation to which no 13 objection was filed in connection with a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition). 14 III. DISCUSSION 15 Having reviewed the R & R, and no objections having been made by any party, 16 the Court hereby incorporates and adopts the R & R in full. 17 IV. CONCLUSION 18 Accordingly, 19 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 20 24) is accepted. 21 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. 22 R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) (Doc. 17) is granted in part as provided in the Report and 23 Recommendation (Doc. 24). 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States 25 District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. 26 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of Respondents’ Motion 27 requesting dismissal of this matter (part of Doc. 17) is denied. 28 / / 1 IT IS FINALLY ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to close this case. 2 Dated this 13th day of January, 2021. 3 Wichal T. Hburde Michael T. Liburdi 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-