(HC)Phan v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Facility
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Stanley Albert Boone (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se habeas corpus petition filed by a federal detainee in the Eastern District of California, noting that the petitioner is held in a facility within the Southern District of California. The court ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that it lacked jurisdiction over the immediate custodian (the warden of the facility where the petitioner is detained) because the facility is located in the Southern District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a habeas petition must be filed in the district of confinement. The court appropriately utilized 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to transfer the case to the proper district rather than dismissing it, which is a standard and equitable procedure for cases filed in the wrong district. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the jurisdictional defect (wrong district for the immediate custodian) and applies the correct statutory mechanism (28 U.S.C. § 1631) to remedy it by transferring the case to the proper district. The reliance on Ninth Circuit precedent for the requirement to name the immediate custodian is appropriate.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAO HUY PHAN, 1:25-cv-01153-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 13 v. THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 WARDEN OF THE OTAY MESA DETENTION FACILITY, et al., (Doc. 1) 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner Hao Huy Phan, a federal detainee proceeding pro se, initiated this action on 19 September 8, 2025, with the filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 2241. Petitioner challenges his detainment in San Diego County, which is in the Southern District 21 of California. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the Respondent (the warden of the out-of-district 22 facility where Petitioner is in custody). See generally Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188 (9th Cir. 23 2024), pet. for rehrng. en banc or panel rehrng denied, No. 23-15361 (9th Cir. May 29, 2025). 24 Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern 25 District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong 26 district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631; Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th 27 Cir. 1990) (transferring habeas action pursuant to § 1631).1 28 1 Petitioner alleges that the San Francisco Field Office of ICE “is a legal custodian of Petitioner.” 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States 2 | District Court for the Southern District of California. 3 | SOORDERED. 4 Dated: _ September 9, 2025 | V Vv KD 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 26 27 || (Doc. 1 at 49). However, for core habeas petitions (such as the petition here), a petitioner must name his immediate custodian, the warden of the facility where he is detained, as the respondent to his petition, and 23 | nota supervisory custodian. See Doe, 109 F.4th at 1195-97.