Opinion
00 Civ. 0566 (DLC)(AJP).
March 15, 2000.
OPINION AND ORDER
Petitioner Imran Rashid Akhtar's habeas corpus petition was referred to me for a Report and Recommendation by Judge Cote. Upon a review of the petition, it appears that petitioner Akhtar is in INS custody in the Buffalo, New York area, where he was taken immediately from State prison in the Buffalo area. It also appears that the challenged actions of the INS were taken by the INS office in Batavia, New York,i.e., in the Buffalo area. In addition, defendant Charles Mule is the Facility Director of the Federal Detention Center in Batavia, New York, and defendant John Ingham is the INS District Director for the Buffalo District. Thus, petitioner is located in the Western District of New York. The New York based defendants are in the Western District of New York. The relevant witnesses as to the INS's actions, and the INS documents on this case, appear to all be located in the Western District of New York.
The only relation that this action has to the Southern District of New York is that prior to his incarceration on State charges, petitioner Akhtar lived in New York City, and petitioner's counsel is located in Manhattan.
If the petitioner had been taken into INS custody within the Southern District of New York and then transferred outside the District, the result might not be the same. That, however, is not the case here.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and § 1406(a), in the interests of justice, this action is sua sponte transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of New York.See, e.g., Graham v. Reno, 99 Civ. 3348, 1999 WL 617920 at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 24, 1999) (Stein, D.J. Peck, M.J.) (transfer of § 2241 habeas petition seeking review of INS action from S.D.N.Y. to N.D.N.Y., the district of confinement and where the INS hearing had occurred); see also, e.g., In re Smith, No. 99-5116, 1999 WL 506695 at *1 (D.C. Cir. June 8, 1999) (affirms transfer of habeas petition to district "where petitioner is being detained and the immigration proceedings against him took place" and where "there is no compelling reason for the case to be heard" in the district where suit was initially brought); Tri v. INS, No. C 98-3891, 1998 WL 827557 at *1 (N.D.Cal. 1998) (§ 2241 habeas challenging INS action transferred to district of confinement); Wang v. Reno, 862 F. Supp. 801, 813 (E.D.N.Y. 1994) (same; "it is . . . not appropriate for this Court to exercise jurisdiction over a habeas petitioner located outside the Eastern District. A holding that jurisdiction is proper where there are no compelling reasons to reach a petitioner outside the geographic confines of the district would add to the confusion about the proper place to file habeas petitions challenging asylum, which would, in turn, lead to further delay."); Peon v. Thornburgh, 765 F. Supp. 155, 156 (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (§ 2241 habeas petition challenging INS action transferred from S.D.N.Y. to N.D.N.Y., where petitioner's custodian, i.e., the warden, was located); see generally Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106, 127 (2d Cir. 1998) ("We note that Supreme Court precedent establishes that traditional venue doctrines are fully applicable in habeas suits. . . ."), cert. denied, 119 S.Ct. 1141 (1999).
The Clerk of Court shall transfer the petition ten days from the date of this Order, if no objection to this Order is filed by that time. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; Fed.R.Civ.P. 6, 72. If an objection is filed, it will be submitted to Judge Cote for consideration.
The May 12, 2000 deadline for the Government's response to the Petition remains, subject to any extension granted by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. The S.D.N.Y. U.S. Attorney's Office is to so notify the U.S. Attorney's Office for the W.D.N.Y.
SO ORDERED.
Copies to: Jorge Guttlein, Esq. Mary Jo White, U.S. Attorney's Office, S.D.N Y Judge Denise L. Cote