Opinion
2:24-cv-05601-DOC-DFM
07-19-2024
Espoire Ishibolecho v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, et al.
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE
On May 15, 2024, plaintiff in this case, Espoire Ishibolecho, filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in a substantively identical case, 5:24-cv-01043-DOC-DFM (Espoire Ishibolecho v. Andrews DHS Attorney Gen). On June 11, 2024, Magistrate Judge McCormick transferred the case to the Eastern District of California. See Dkt. 5. Judge McCormick explained:
“Petitioner, an immigration detainee, has filed a federal pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under § 2241. See Dkt. 1. Petitioner is currently being held at the Mesa Verde Detention Center in Bakersfield, California. See id. at 1. This facility is located in Kern County in the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b).
Here, Petitioner is confined in Bakersfield, California. As such, the Petition should have been filed in the Eastern District of California, where the Mesa Verde Detention Center facility is located.”Id.
After Case No. 5:24-cv-01043-DOC-DFM was transferred, Plaintiff Espoire Ishibolecho filed the present case, 2:24-cv-05601-DOC-DFM (Espoire Ishibolecho v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, et al.) on July 1, 2024. Plaintiff is still detained, however, at Mesa Verde in Bakersfield, California. Therefore, the Eastern District of California is the appropriate venue to hear this case.
As the present case is substantively identical to Case No. 5:24-cv-01043-DOC-DFM, however, the Court sees no purpose in transferring this new case to the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff already has an ongoing habeas petition in the Eastern District of California that covers the claims here (Case No. 1:24-cv-00679). A review of the docket indicates that Plaintiff has been diligently pursuing his habeas petition in that Court. Plaintiff should continue to pursue his habeas petition through that case in the Eastern District of California, as the Central District of California is not the appropriate venue for his lawsuit.
Therefore, the Court ORDERS that this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.