Sandeep Kumar v. Sergio Albarran, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition filed by an immigration detainee in the Eastern District of California, determining that the petitioner was held in the Southern District of California. The court ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of California and directed the Clerk to close the case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of the matter to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California“This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California” | agree with court The court correctly identified that venue for a § 2241 petition lies in the district of confinement. The petitioner admitted to being detained in Imperial County, which is in the Southern District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1631, a court may transfer a case to another district where venue is proper. The transfer is the appropriate procedural mechanism to resolve the venue defect. |
Closure of the case in the Eastern District of California“The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.” | agree with court Upon transferring a case to another district, the transferring court typically closes its own docket for that matter. This is standard administrative procedure following a transfer order. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct. It identifies the venue error, cites the controlling Ninth Circuit authority regarding the district of confinement rule for § 2241 petitions, and utilizes the correct statutory mechanism (28 U.S.C. § 1631) for transfer. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the jurisdictional/venue issue raised by the petitioner's own allegations.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SANDEEP KUMAR, No. 1:26-cv-02288-DC-JDP (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER TRANSFERRING MATTER TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 14 SERGIO ALBARRAN, et al., THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 Respondents. 16 17 On March 24, 2026, Petitioner, an immigration detainee, filed an application for a writ of 18 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: March 24, 2026 RLU Osa 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