Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01513/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01513-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER APARICIO TOBAR,

A#205411487,

Petitioner,

v.

CURRENT OR ACTING FIELD OFFICE 

DIRECTOR, et al.,

Respondent.

Case No. 24-cv-08550-SK (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

(ECF Nos. 2 & 3)

I.

Petitioner Walter Aparicio Tobar, a citizen of Guatemala, filed a pro se petition for a writ 

of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his prolonged detention by the United States 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Golden State Annex detention center in 

McFarland, California. 

II.

The federal habeas statute expressly limits the power of district courts to grant habeas writs 

to “within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). “The plain language of the habeas 

statute thus confirms the general rule that for core habeas petitions challenging present physical 

confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. 

Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004). This district-of-confinement rule is a “bright-line rule” that 

does not contain any exceptions other than the express statutory carveouts in 28 U.S.C §§ 2241(d) 

and 2255. Id. at 443, 449-50. The Ninth Circuit has affirmed the application of the bright-line 

district-of-confinement rule to habeas petitions challenging the fact or duration of a sentence under 

§ 2241. See, e.g., Muth v. Fondren, 676 F.3d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 2012) (“§ 2241 petitions must be 

filed in the district where the petitioner is confined”); Stephens v. Herrera, 464 F.3d 895, 897 (9th 

Case 1:24-cv-01513-EPG Document 5 Filed 12/11/24 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Cir. 2006) (“§ 2241 petition must be filed in the district where the petitioner is in custody”). And 

recently made clear that the rule also applies to habeas petitions challenging immigration 

detention. See Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1199 (9th Cir. 2024) (holding petition by 

immigration detainee challenging his detention is a “core habeas petition” and must be filed in the 

district of confinement under Padilla). 

Petitioner is detained at the Golden State Annex detention center in McFarland, California 

in the County of Kern, which lies within the venue of the Eastern District of California. See 28 

U.S.C. § 84(b). Under the rationale of Doe v. Garland, jurisdiction/venue for this habeas 

challenge to Petitioner’s immigration detention lies only in the Eastern District of California. See

109 F.4th at 1199.

III.

For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

and motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel therein (ECF 

Nos. 2 & 3) are TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

California. 

The clerk is instructed to transfer this case forthwith. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 10, 2024

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:24-cv-01513-EPG Document 5 Filed 12/11/24 Page 2 of 2