Zhilun Liu v. Todd M. Lyons, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition filed by a federal immigration detainee in the Eastern District of California, determining that venue was improper because the petitioner is detained in the Southern District of California. The court ordered the petitioner to show cause why the case should not be transferred to the Southern District of California.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order for Petitioner to Show Cause why petition should not be transferred“Accordingly, within seven (7) days of the date of service of this order, Petitioner SHALL SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be 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 Imperial County, California, which is in the Southern District of California, the Eastern District of California lacks proper venue. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, the court has the authority to transfer a civil action to a court where it could have been brought. Ordering the petitioner to show cause why the case should not be transferred is a procedurally appropriate step to effectuate the transfer to the proper venue. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the venue rules for § 2241 habeas petitions, citing binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. It accurately identifies the district of confinement and invokes the statutory authority for transfer. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the procedural defect in the filing.
Opinion
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ZHILU LIU, Case No. 1:26-cv-02123-KES-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER FOR PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. TRANSFERRED 14 TODD M. LYONS, et al., 15 Respondents.
16 17 Petitioner, represented by counsel, is a federal immigration detainee proceeding with a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 19 “Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody 20 within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the 21 district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004). The Ninth Circuit has 22 “affirm[ed] the application of the immediate custodian and district of confinement rules to core 23 habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, including those filed by immigrant 24 detainees.” Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1199 (9th Cir. 2024). 25 Here, Petitioner challenges her present physical custody at the Calixto Detention Facility 26 in Imperial County, California. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Therefore, venue is proper in the district of 27 confinement, which is the Southern District of California. “Whenever a civil action is filed in a ] | interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court . . . in which the action 2 | or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed... .” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. 3 Accordingly, within seven (7) days of the date of service of this order, Petitioner SHALL 4 | SHOW CAUSE why the petition should not be transferred to the United States District Court for 5 | the Southern District of California. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8] Dated: _ March 18, 2026 [Je hey — 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28