Huilong Zheng v. Warden
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se immigration detainee's habeas corpus petition filed in the Eastern District of California. The court granted the respondent's motion to transfer the case to the Southern District of California because the petitioner's immediate custodian is located there.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to transfer granted“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion (ECF No. 8) is GRANTED. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.” | agree with court The order correctly applies the rule that jurisdiction over a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition lies in the district of the immediate custodian. Since the petitioner is detained in the Southern District of California, the Eastern District of California lacks jurisdiction. The court properly utilized 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to transfer the case to the proper district. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the lack of jurisdiction based on the location of the immediate custodian and cites the appropriate Ninth Circuit precedent and statutory authority for transfer. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the motion.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 HUILONG ZHENG, No. 1:26-cv-05550-DJC-JDP 10 Petitioner, 11 v. ORDER 12 WARDEN, A# 249-124-861 13 Respondents. 14 15 Petitioner, an immigrant detainee proceeding pro se, has filed an application 16 for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is detained at 17 Imperial Regional Detention Facility in Imperial County. Jurisdiction over this section 18 2241 petition is proper only in the district in which petitioner’s immediate custodian is 19 located. See Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188 (9th Cir. 2024) (holding that an individual 20 challenging civil immigration detention must file their petition in the district of 21 confinement where the immediate custodian is located). Petitioner’s custodian is 22 located in the Southern District of California. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1631 in the interests of justice this action will be transferred to the United States 24 District Court for the Southern District of California. 25 //// 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 In accordance with the above, IT |S HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion 2 | (ECF No. 8)is GRANTED. This matter is transferred to the United States District Court 3 | forthe Southern District of California. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 | Dated: _ August 2, 2026 “Dane J CoO □□□□ Hon. Daniel alabretta / 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