(HC) Thai v. Warden of the Core Civic 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 immigration detainee in the Eastern District of California, which challenged his physical custody at a facility in 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 the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California“Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a habeas petition challenging present physical custody must be filed in the district of confinement. Since the petitioner is detained in San Diego (S.D. Cal.), the E.D. Cal. lacked proper venue. The court appropriately utilized 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to transfer the case rather than dismiss it, which is the standard procedure for curing venue defects in the interest of justice. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the venue rules for § 2241 habeas petitions as established by the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit. The decision to transfer under § 1631 rather than dismiss is consistent with judicial practice for pro se litigants and venue errors.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAI KIM THAI, Case No. 1:25-cv-01178-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 14 WARDEN OF THE CORE CIVIC OTAY CALIFORNIA MESA DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 20 “Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody 21 within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the 22 district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004). The Ninth Circuit has 23 “affirm[ed] the application of the immediate custodian and district of confinement rules to core 24 habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, including those filed by immigrant 25 detainees.” Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1199 (9th Cir. 2024). 26 Here, Petitioner challenges his present physical custody at the Otay Mesa Detention 27 Center in San Diego, California. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Therefore, venue is proper in the district of 1 | court . . . and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the 2 | interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court . . . in which the action 3 | or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed .. . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 4 | Accordingly, rather than dismissal, the Court finds that transfer of the petition to the United 5 | States District Court of the Southern District of California is appropriate in the interest of justice. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the 7 | United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. OF a Se 10 | Dated: _ September 15, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 1] United States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28