Ramandeep Singh v. Jeremy Casey, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
Petitioner, an immigration detainee, filed a habeas corpus petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order in the Eastern District of California while detained in Imperial County, California. The court ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of California and closed the case in the Eastern District.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of the matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California“Thus, in the interests of justice this action will be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that venue for a § 2241 habeas petition lies in the district of confinement. Since the petitioner is detained in Imperial County, which is in the Southern District of California, the Eastern District of California lacked proper venue. Transferring the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 is the appropriate procedural mechanism to move the case to the proper district. |
Closure of the case in the Eastern District of California“The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.” | agree with court Closing the case in the transferring court is standard procedure following a transfer order under 28 U.S.C. § 1631. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the venue rule for § 2241 habeas petitions, citing binding Ninth Circuit authority (Doe v. Garland) to establish that the district of confinement is the proper venue. The court correctly identifies that Imperial County is in the Southern District of California, not the Eastern District, and uses 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to transfer the case. The reasoning is concise and legally sound for a procedural transfer order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAMANDEEP SINGH, No. 1:26-cv-01134-DC-SCR (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER TRANSFERRING MATTER TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 14 JEREMY CASEY, et al., THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 Respondents.
16 17 On February 9, 2026, Petitioner, an immigration detainee, filed an application for a writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a motion for a temporary restraining order, 19 challenging his detention in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody. (Doc. 20 Nos. 1, 2.) In those filings, Petitioner alleges that he is currently detained at the Imperial Regional 21 Adult Detention Facility, which is located in Imperial County, California, and thus venue is 22 proper in the Southern District of California. (Doc. No. 1 at 3.) Indeed, Imperial County is located 23 in an area covered by the United States District Court for the Southern District of California—not 24 this district. Jurisdiction over this § 2241 petition is proper only in the district of confinement. See 25 Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1197-98 (9th Cir. 2024). 26 Thus, in the interests of justice this action will be transferred to the United States District 27 Court for the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 28 Accordingly, ] 1. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern 2 District of California; and 3 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 6 | Dated: _ February 10, 2026 Qe cs Dena Coggins 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28