(HC) Fon v. Mayorkas
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Stanley Albert Boone (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee challenging his current physical confinement. The court ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the district of confinement.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Transfer of case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California.” | agree with court The order correctly identifies that the petitioner is challenging present physical confinement and that he is detained in the Southern District of California. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and the precedent cited, venue for such a petition lies exclusively in the district of confinement. Therefore, the transfer is the legally required action. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the venue rule for habeas corpus petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. It accurately cites Padilla v. Rumsfeld to support the proposition that venue is proper in the district of confinement for challenges to present physical confinement. The facts (detention in Calexico, CA) align with the legal conclusion (transfer to S.D. Cal.). The reasoning is complete and legally sound for a procedural transfer order.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHEN TAMUFOR FON, Case No. 1:21-cv-00171-SAB-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 14 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., CALIFORNIA 15 Respondents.
16 17 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 19 In the petition, Petitioner challenges his prolonged detention on due process and Eighth 20 Amendment grounds in addition to his exposure to illness and consequences of death through 21 exposure to COVID-19. (ECF No. 1 at 6).1 Petitioner is currently detained at the Imperial 22 Regional Detention Facility in Calexico, California, which is located in the Southern District of 23 California. (Id. at 1). 24 Here, Petitioner challenges his present physical confinement. Therefore, venue is proper 25 in the district of confinement, which is the Southern District of California. See Padilla v. 26 Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004) (“The plain language of the habeas statute [28 U.S.C. 27 1 | § 2241] thus confirms the general rule that for core habeas petitions challenging present physical 2 | confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.”). 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the 4 | United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. F- 2 ee 7 | Dated: _February 17, 2021 __ ef UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28