(HC) Nguyen 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 an immigration detainee in the Eastern District of California. The court ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of California because the detention facility is located in that district.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to transfer case to the Southern District of California granted“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 the venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), requires the action to be brought in a district where the defendant resides or where a substantial part of the events occurred. Since the petitioner is challenging detention at a facility in San Diego County (Southern District), the Eastern District was the wrong venue. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a case to the district where it should have been brought. The application of the law to the facts is correct. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally correct and relies on the appropriate statutory provisions for venue and transfer. It accurately identifies the location of the detention facility as the basis for proper venue. However, it is a very brief order that does not explicitly discuss the specific nature of the habeas petition or any potential exceptions to the general venue rules, though none appear applicable here.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOC MINH NGUYEN, 1:25-cv-01175-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 14 WARDEN OF THE OTAY MESA CALIFORNIA DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondent. 16 17 Petitioner, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 19 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 20 jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants 21 are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial 22 part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property 23 that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may 24 otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is 25 subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 26 28 1 Here, the petitioner is challenging his continued detention by Respondents at Otay Mesa 2 Detention Facility, which is located in San Diego County in the Southern District of California. 3 Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern 4 District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong 5 district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); Starnes v. McGuire, 512 F.2d 918, 932 6 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States 8 District Court for the Southern District of California. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: September 16, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28