Opinion
No. 20-cv-2824 (MKV)
04-06-2020
DAVID COLLADO, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Respondent.
ORDER TO TRANSFER FOR LACK OF VENUE
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL, District Judge:
The Court is in receipt of a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, that was filed in the above-captioned matter today, April 6, 2020. [ECF #1] The Court has also been advised that a member of Petitioner's family informed the Clerk's Office that Petitioner is scheduled to be removed from the United States tomorrow.
The Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus from a person in custody challenging the legality of his detention on the ground that "[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The Court is also obliged to construe pro se pleadings liberally and interpret them "to raise the strongest arguments they suggest." Triestman v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 470 F.3d 471, 474 (2d Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Court therefore construes Petitioner's filing as including an emergency motion for a stay of removal proceedings. However, a pro se litigant is not exempt "from compliance with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law." Id. at 477 (quoting Traguth v. Zuck, 710 F.2d 90, 95 (2d Cir. 1983)).
The Southern District of New York is not a proper venue for this proceeding. The proper venue for the petition is "the district of confinement," which is the District of New Jersey. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004). See also, e.g., Cesar v. Shanahan, No. 17-cv-7974, 2018 WL 1747989, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2018); Alberto v. Decker, No. 17-cv-2604, 2017 WL 6210785, at *1-*2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2017); Phrance v. Johnson, No. 14-cv-3569, 2014 WL 6807590, at *1-*2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2014); Medina-Valdez v. Holder, No. 12-CV-6002, 2012 WL 4714758, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2012); Guo v. Napolitano, No. 09-cv-3023, 2009 WL 2840400, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 2, 2009). The Court is aware that a minority of decisions in this district have declined to apply Padilla in the context of an immigration habeas proceeding. See Matias Madera v. Decker, No. 18-cv-7314, 2018 WL 10602037, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2018). However, even these decisions acknowledge that they break with the majority. Id. ("I recognize that the majority of courts within this district have applied Padilla in the immigration context.").
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this case shall be transferred to the District of New Jersey. Dated: April 6, 2020
New York, New York
/s/ _________
MARY KAY VYSKOCIL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE