Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00775/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00775-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID ALONZO LOPEZ-ALVARENGA,

Petitioner,

v.

CURRENT OR ACTING FIELD OFFICE 

DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO FIELD 

OFFICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION 

AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00775-EPG-HC

ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

MOTION TO TRANSFER

(ECF No. 16)

Petitioner David Alonzo Lopez-Alvarenga is a federal immigration detainee proceeding 

pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The parties have 

consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 15, 17, 18.)

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of California on July 18, 2023. (ECF No. 1.) On September 29, 2023, the 

United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order to transfer the 

petition to this Court. (ECF No. 6.) On July 3, 2024, the case was transferred. (ECF No. 7.)

On July 26, 2024, Petitioner filed the instant motion requesting that his case be 

transferred back to the Northern District of California because he is “currently being detained in 

Mesa Verde Detention Center.” (ECF No. 16.) The Mesa Verde Detention Center is located in 

Bakersfield, California, which is within the jurisdiction of the Eastern District of California.

Case 1:24-cv-00775-EPG Document 22 Filed 11/01/24 Page 1 of 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

2

“Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the 

United States, he should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of 

confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004). The Ninth Circuit has “affirm[ed]

the application of the immediate custodian and district of confinement rules to core habeas 

petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, including those filed by immigrant detainees.” Doe 

v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1199 (9th Cir. 2024). 

Based on the foregoing, this Court has jurisdiction over the petition. Accordingly, 

Petitioner’s motion to transfer (ECF No. 16) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2024 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00775-EPG Document 22 Filed 11/01/24 Page 2 of 2