Opinion
No. 04 Civ. 10169 (SAS).
December 30, 2004
Edwin Carlos Carter, Paterson, New Jersey, Petitioner (Pro Se).
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pro se petitioner Edwin Carlos Carter seeks a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging an April 3, 1992 Order of the Immigration Judge ("IJ") deporting him from the United States to Barbados. See Record at 28. To challenge his order of deportation, Carter filed a petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Petitioner has been detained at the Passaic County Jail, located in Passaic County, New Jersey, since April 7, 2004.
The proper respondent in a habeas corpus proceeding is the official with direct control over the petitioner's detention. See Henderson v. INS, 157 F.3d 106, 122 (2d Cir. 1998) ("In general, courts have treated the individual with day-to-day control over the petitioner as the custodian for habeas purposes"). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2243 ("The writ . . . shall be directed to the person having custody of the person detained."). The case law regarding the proper respondent in immigration habeas petitions is unclear at best. See Ali v. Ashcroft, 346 F.3d 873, 887-88 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[A]lthough the principle that the immediate custodian is the proper respondent to a habeas petition is clear, the application of this principle in immigration habeas petitions does not lead to a simple resolution of how to identify the proper respondent.") (emphasis added). There are several possible respondents: the Attorney General of the United States; the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS"); the warden of the federal correctional institution where the alien is incarcerated; and the Interim Field Office Director for the local Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("BICE") office in the jurisdiction where the alien was incarcerated at the time the petition was filed.
The Supreme Court has noted that the majority of appellate courts apply the immediate custodian rule and have held that either the warden of the facility or the Interim Field Office Director for the local BICE office where the petitioner was incarcerated at the time of filing are proper respondents. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 124 S. Ct. 2711, 2718 n. 8 (2004) (citing Robledo-Gonzales v. Ashcroft, 342 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2003); Roman v. Ashcroft, 340 F. 3d 314 (6th Cir. 2003); Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688 (1st Cir. 2000); and Yi v. Maugans, 24 F.3d 500 (3d Cir. 1994)). In Robledo-Gonzales, the court held that the proper respondent was the "warden of the [federal correctional] facility in which Mr. Robledo-Gonzales was being held." 342 F.3d at 673. Id. at 674. In Roman, the court held that the "the INS District Director for the district where a detention facility is located `has power over' alien habeas corpus petitioners." 340 F.3d at 320. In Vasquez and Li, the courts held that the proper respondent was the superintendent or warden of the prison or facility where the detainee was being held. See Vasquez, 233 F.3d at 692; Yi, 24 F.3d at 507.
Here, petitioner names Charles Meyers, the Passaic County Jail Warden, as a respondent. Applying the immediate custodian rule, he is a proper respondent. Although petitioner correctly notes that under Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Kentucky, 410 U.S. 484 (1973), venue may lie in the Southern District of New York because this is where his deportation proceedings were administratively decided, this Court does not have jurisdiction over Charles Meyers. Accordingly, this case must be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer, then close, this case forthwith.
SO ORDERED.