Opinion
23-cv-06462-VKD
08-16-2024
HECTOR LOPEZ, Petitioner, v. ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., Respondents.
ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; TERMINATING MOTION RE: DKT. NO. 11
Virginia K. DeMarchi United States Magistrate Judge
Petitioner Hector Lopez filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asserting that his prolonged civil immigration detention at the Golden State Annex (“GSA”) violates his constitutional rights. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 1-2. Mr. Lopez names several Respondents, including the Field Office Director of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) located in San Francisco. Id. ¶ 16. He alleges that he is “detained in this District,” and that the Northern District of California is the proper venue for this action. Id. ¶ 12.
The Court found the petition stated a cognizable due process claim and ordered Respondent to answer. Dkt. No. 6. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot because Mr. Lopez has been released from detention and removed from the United States. Dkt. No. 11. Mr. Lopez has not filed a response.
The Ninth Circuit's recent decision in Doe v. Garland, No. 23-15361, -- F.4th --, 2024 WL 3561360 (9th Cir. July 29, 2024), makes clear that the proper respondent for a § 2241 petition is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held. In reversing the district court's decision in Doe, the Ninth Circuit held the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over the petitioner's § 2241 petition because he failed to name his immediate custodian as the respondent. Id. at *8. Doe also makes clear that for a § 2241 petition, “jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Id. at *9 (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004)); see also Lopez-Marroquin v. Barr, 955 F.3d 759, 759-60 (9th Cir. 2020) (applying the district of confinement rule to a § 2241 petition involving a non-citizen's challenge to his immigration detention).
Unlike the petitioner in Doe, Mr. Lopez correctly named his immediate custodian, Warden M. Wofford, as a respondent. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 17. However, like the petitioner in Doe, at the time he filed his petition, Mr. Lopez was confined at GSA in McFarland, California, which (contrary to Mr. Lopez's petition) is located in the Eastern District of California. See id. ¶ 1; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1; Doe, 2024 WL 3561360 at *1. Thus, under Doe, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Lopez's § 2241 petition. The only district that has jurisdiction over the petition is the Eastern District of California, where GSA is located and where Mr. Lopez was confined at the time of filing.
Where a case is filed in the wrong division or district, the Court “shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). While Mr. Lopez could have filed his § 2241 petition in the Eastern District of California, Respondents' unopposed motion to dismiss indicates that Mr. Lopez has been removed from the United States. Dkt. No. 11. Accordingly, the Court finds that dismissal of the action is appropriate because transfer of the petition to the Eastern District of California would serve no interest.
For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Respondent's motion to dismiss shall be terminated as moot. Dkt No. 11.
This order terminates Docket No. 11.
The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.