Sergei Silakov v. Christopher Larose, Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; Markwayne Mullin, US Secretary of Homeland Security
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detainee held in the Southern District of California but filed in the Western District of Washington. The court ordered the case transferred to the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California“Upon review of the docket, the Court orders this matter to be immediately transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).” | agree with court The court correctly identified that venue for a core habeas petition challenging present physical confinement lies in the district of confinement. Because the petitioner is detained in the Southern District of California, the Western District of Washington lacks proper venue. While 28 U.S.C. § 1406 is the standard mechanism for curing improper venue, a transfer under § 1404(a) is a permissible and common alternative to effectuate the transfer to the proper district, particularly when the court determines the transfer is in the interest of justice. The decision follows from the law and the recited facts. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the rule from Rumsfeld v. Padilla that venue for a habeas petition challenging physical confinement lies in the district of confinement. It accurately identifies the district of confinement as the Southern District of California and orders a transfer there. The use of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) rather than § 1406 is a minor procedural choice but is legally sufficient to effectuate the transfer to the proper venue. The reasoning is concise and directly answers the jurisdictional/venue issue.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 SERGEI SILAKOV, Case No. 2:26-cv-01632-TMC 8 Petitioner, ORDER OF TRANSFER 9 v. 10 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden, Otay 11 Mesa Detention Center; MARKWAYNE MULLIN, US Secretary of Homeland 12 Security;, 13 Respondents. 14 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before this Court is self-represented petitioner Sergei Silakov’s petition for writ of 17 habeas corpus. Dkt. 1. Upon review of the docket, the Court orders the transfer of this matter to 18 the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 19 II. BACKGROUND 20 Mr. Silakov, a Russian national, first entered the United States in 1996. Dkt. 1 at 9. He 21 resides in Washington state. Id. at 14. Mr. Silakov visited a cancer clinic in Tijuana, Mexico on 22 December 22, 2025. Id. at 11. He returned to the United States on February 18, 2026, and was 23 arrested by the Department of Homeland Security. Id. at 14. Mr. Silakov was eventually 24 l transferred to Otay Mesa Detention Center, located in San Diego, California, where he remains 2 detained. /d. at 1. The instant petition was filed on May 5, 2026. Id. 3 Il. LEGAL STANDARD 4 “District courts are limited to granting habeas relief ‘within their respective 5 jurisdictions.’” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a)). 6 “The plain language of the habeas statute thus confirms the general rule that for core habeas 7 petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the g district of confinement.” /d.
9 IV. DISCUSSION 10 Mr. Silakov is detained within Otay Mesa Detention Center, which is located within the Southern District of California. Dkt. 1 at 1. Venue is improper in this district. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the Court transfers this matter to the United States District 3 Court for the Southern District of California as it is in the interest of justice.
14 Vv. CONCLUSION 15 Upon review of the docket, the Court orders this matter to be immediately transferred to 16 the United States District Court for the Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
7 § 1404(a).
8 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 19 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
Dated this 14th day of May, 2026.
21 Z -_( A Tiffany(Vy Cartwright 22 United States District Judge 23 24