Tanh Van Tran v. Christopher Larose, Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 3 Because Petitioner “is already seeking habeas relief in another District Court,” 4 Respondents request that this litigation be stayed until Petitioner’s earlier petition is 5 resolved.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Janis L. Sammartino (author)
Analysis
Respondents moved to stay the proceedings in this habeas corpus case, arguing that Petitioner had already filed a pending petition in the District of Arizona. The Court denied the motion, holding that it had exclusive jurisdiction because Petitioner was currently confined in the Southern District of California, and ordered Respondents to file a return within one day.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Stay Proceedings denied“Accordingly, the Court DENIES Respondents’ Motion to Stay Proceedings (ECF No. 10).” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'custodial court' rule for 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions. Because the petitioner was physically transferred to the Southern District of California, the District of Arizona likely lost jurisdiction (or at least the S.D. Cal. gained exclusive jurisdiction for the current confinement), making a stay unnecessary and improper. The court cited binding Ninth Circuit authority (Doe v. Garland) and Supreme Court authority (Rumsfeld v. Padilla) to support this conclusion. |
Deadline set for Respondents to file a return“Thus, if Respondents elect to file a return, they SHALL FILE it by 5:00 PM on September 3, 2026.” | agree with court The court noted that the deadline for the return had passed and granted a one-day extension to cure the default. This is a standard procedural management action within the court's discretion. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the motion to stay by applying the well-established 'custodial court' rule. It correctly identifies that the petitioner's transfer to the S.D. Cal. gives that court jurisdiction, rendering the stay request moot or improper. The citation to Doe v. Garland is particularly relevant as it confirms the rule applies to immigration detainees, which appears to be the context here (Otay Mesa Detention Center). The reasoning is legally sound and supported by binding authority.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TANH VAN TRAN, Case No.: 26-CV-4773 JLS (DEB)
12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING RESPONDENTS’ 13 v. MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Warden, (ECF No. 10) Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 19 Presently before the Court is Respondents’ Motion to Stay Proceedings (“Mot.,” 20 ECF No. 10), along with Petitioner’s Opposition (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 11). For the following 21 reasons, the Court DENIES the Motion. 22 BACKGROUND 23 Petitioner filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Pet.,” ECF No. 6) 24 challenging his detention at Otay Mesa Detention Center. Pet. at 2. Petitioner was arrested 25 in San Diego, California, but was transferred to a detention center in San Luis, Arizona. 26 Id. While detained in Arizona, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus which 27 remains pending before the District of Arizona. See Tran v. Rocha, No. 2:26-CV-1131- 28 MTL-CDB (D. Ariz.). This petition has been pending for over six months and fully briefed 1 for five months. Opp’n at 2. After fourteen months of detention in Arizona, Petitioner was 2 transferred last week to Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego, California. Pet. at 2. 3 Because Petitioner “is already seeking habeas relief in another District Court,” 4 Respondents request that this litigation be stayed until Petitioner’s earlier petition is 5 resolved. Mot. at 1. 6 DISCUSSION 7 A petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 must be 8 brought in the district in which the petitioner is presently confined. Hernandez v. 9 Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[A] habeas petition filed pursuant to § 2241 10 must be heard in the custodial court.”); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 11 (2004) (“The plain language of the habeas statute thus confirms the general rule that for 12 core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only 13 one district: the district of confinement.”). The Ninth Circuit has held that this 14 jurisdictional rule applies to habeas petitions filed pursuant to § 2241 by individuals held 15 in immigration detention. See Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1199 (9th Cir. 2024) 16 (“[W]e affirm the application of the immediate custodian and district of confinement rules 17 to core habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, including those filed by 18 immigrant detainees.”). 19 Here, the Court unmistakably has jurisdiction over the current Petition because 20 Petitioner remains detained at the Otay Mesa Detention Center located within the Southern 21 District of California. Pet. at 2. Although Petitioner filed a previous petition in another 22 District, Petitioner is no longer confined in that District. Id. Further, the petition filed in 23 Arizona has been pending for over six months, and the District of Arizona has not expressly 24 retained jurisdiction over the petition since Petitioner’s transfer to the Southern District of 25 California. See Tran v. Rocha, No. 2:26-CV-1131-MTL-CDB (D. Ariz.). 26 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Respondents’ Motion to Stay Proceedings (ECF 27 No. 10). The Court also notes that Respondents have yet to file a return in response to 28 Petitioner’s Amended Petition despite the deadline for filing a response passing on 1 ||September 1, 2026. See generally Docket. The Court will give Respondents one day to 2 ||cure this error. Thus, if Respondents elect to file a return, they SHALL FILE it by 5:00 3 ||PM on September 3, 2026. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: September 2, 2026 . 6 ja Janis L. Sammartino 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28