Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00174/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00174-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

19-cv-174-BTM-MDD

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Isaac Kiniti Wairimu,

Petitioner,

v.

Director, Department of Homeland 

Security and Director, Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement,

Respondents.

Case No.: 19-cv-174-BTM-MDD

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 

FOR LACK OF PERSONAL 

JURISDICTION AND FAILING TO 

PAY FILING FEE OR REQUEST 

IFP STATUS

[ECF No. 1]

Before the Court is Petitioner Isaac Kiniti’s petition for a stay pending an 

interlocutory appeal before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“the BIA”) of an 

immigration judge’s order granting a change of venue. (ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”).) The 

Court treats this motion as a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 

U.S.C. § 2241, alleging a violation of due process and requesting relief in the form 

of a stay of removal proceedings before the immigration judge. For the reasons 

discussed below, the Court dismisses the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction.

I. BACKGROUND

Mr. Kiniti is in removal proceedings, which were originally before the 

Immigration Court in Imperial, California (“the Imperial Immigration Court”). (See

Case 3:19-cv-00174-BTM-MDD Document 2 Filed 02/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

19-cv-174-BTM-MDD

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

Pet. Ex. C.) On December 2, 2018, the Department of Homeland Security

(“DHS”) took Mr. Kiniti into custody, pending a final administrative determination 

in his case, pursuant to § 236 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified as 

8 U.S.C. § 1226, and part 236 of the Code of Federal Regulations, codified as 

8 C.F.R. § 236. (Pet. Ex. A.) Mr. Kiniti is currently being held by DHS at the 

Franklin County House of Corrections in Greenfield, Massachusetts, which is 

within the jurisdiction of the Hartford, Connecticut Immigration Court (“the 

Hartford Immigration Court”). (Pet. Ex. B.) 

On December 3, 2018, DHS filed a motion to change the venue of Mr. 

Kiniti’s removal proceedings to the Hartford Immigration Court. (Id.) On 

December 7, 2018, the Immigration Judge in Imperial ordered that the venue be 

changed to Hartford, basing the decision “upon due consideration of the Motion 

for Change of Venue . . . and having been satisfied that the non-moving party 

was accorded notice and an opportunity to respond.” (Pet. Ex. C.)

On December 11, 2018, Mr. Kiniti attempted to file an opposition to DHS’s 

motion to change venue with the Imperial Immigration Court. (Pet. Ex. E.) The 

opposition lists several reasons why a change of venue would be inconvenient 

and unnecessary and also “inform[s] the Court that he received the governments 

[sic] motion for a change of venue on 12/11/18 and replied to it on 12/11/18.” 

(Id.) On December 20, 2018, the Imperial Immigration Court received Mr. Kiniti’s 

opposition and rejected the filing, giving the following reason: “Incorrect Filing 

Location (Case at Court) – This Immigration Court is not, at this time, the correct 

location to file your document. You should file your submission at: Hartford 

Detained Docket.” (Id.)

On December 13, 2018, the Hartford Immigration Court issued a notice of 

hearing in removal proceedings, indicating that Mr. Kiniti’s case was scheduled 

for a master hearing on December 19, 2018. (Pet. Ex. D.)

Mr. Kiniti alleges that he received both the Imperial Immigration Court’s 

Case 3:19-cv-00174-BTM-MDD Document 2 Filed 02/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

19-cv-174-BTM-MDD

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

order granting DHS’s motion for a change of venue and the Hartford Immigration

Court’s notice of a master hearing on December 17, 2018. (See Pet., 3.) Mr. 

Kiniti also alleges that any date on which he receives mail should be “easily 

proved as Kiniti is detained and any legal mail he has received should be 

documented according to standard procedure.” (Pet. Ex. H., 2.) 

On December 18, 2018, Mr. Kiniti appealed the Imperial Immigration 

Court’s order to the BIA, asking that his removal proceedings remain in 

California. (See Pet. Ex. H.) Now, Mr. Kiniti brings this petition before the Court, 

alleging a violation of due process and requesting relief in the form of a stay of 

his removal proceedings pending the BIA’s decision on his appeal. (See Pet.) 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Personal Jurisdiction

The Court holds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Mr. Kiniti’s petition. 

Moreover, even if there is personal jurisdiction, the preferable forum for a § 2241 

habeas petition is the district of confinement.

As a general matter, “[d]istrict [c]ourts are limited to granting habeas relief 

‘within their respective jurisdictions.’” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 

(2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a)). A federal court issuing a writ of habeas 

corpus must have personal jurisdiction over the custodian, see Braden v. 30th 

Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 495 (1973), which is often referred to as the 

“local custodian rule.” Without such jurisdiction, the court has no authority to 

direct the actions of the restraining authority. Malone v. Calderon, 165 F.3d 

1234, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that a California district court did not have 

jurisdiction over a habeas action related to a prisoner confined in Missouri). The 

court has personal jurisdiction over the custodian if the court can reach the 

custodian by service of process. Braden, 410 U.S. at 495. Thus, where a 

petitioner names a respondent who is outside the district court’s territorial limits, 

the court lacks personal jurisdiction to consider the petition. See Malone, 165 F. 

Case 3:19-cv-00174-BTM-MDD Document 2 Filed 02/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

19-cv-174-BTM-MDD

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

3d at 1237.

In the Ninth Circuit, there is an unresolved question as to whether the local 

custodian rule applies in the immigration context. In Sales v. Johnson, the 

Northern District of California noted that:

The Ninth Circuit in Armentero v. INS, 340 F.3d 1058, 1069 (9th Cir. 

2003) (Armentero I ), had concluded that the immediate custodian 

rule did not apply in a situation where the local or state warden lacked 

any legal power to release the detainee. It ultimately determined that 

the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security were proper respondents. Id. at 1071, 1073. 

However, the Ninth Circuit subsequently withdrew Armentero I, and 

dismissed the appeal based on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, 

which prohibits considering the appeal of one who flees from custody 

during its pendency. Armentero v. INS, 412 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 

2005) (Armentero II ).

323 F. Supp. 3d 1131, 1137 n.3 (N.D. Cal. 2017). The Sales court ultimately 

held that there was personal jurisdiction over the petitioner in light of the 

ambiguity in the law and the fact that at least one of the four named respondents 

“ha[d] the legal power to provide [the petitioner] with the requested relief.” Id. at 

138.

This case is distinct from Sales in that the state of the law is unclear as to 

whether either of the respondents are properly named here. See id. Thus, the 

Court determines that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Mr. Kiniti’s petition.

Even if there is personal jurisdiction, however, the preferable forum for a 

§ 2241 habeas petition is the district of confinement. See McCoy v. United 

States Bd. of Parole, 537 F.2d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 1976); see also Dunne v. 

Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249-50 (9th Cir. 1989) (suggesting that even where the

district court has personal jurisdiction over the custodian, the preferred forum for 

a § 2241 petition is the district where the petitioner is confined). Because Mr. 

Kiniti is currently being held by DHS at the Franklin County House of Corrections 

in Greenfield, Massachusetts, the district of confinement is the District of 

Case 3:19-cv-00174-BTM-MDD Document 2 Filed 02/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

19-cv-174-BTM-MDD

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

Massachusetts. Thus, the preferable forum for Mr. Kiniti’s habeas petition is the 

District of Massachusetts.

B. Failure to Pay Filing Fee or Request IFP Status

All parties instituting any civil action, suit, or proceeding in any district court 

of the United States must “pay a filing fee of $350, except that on application for 

a writ of habeas corpus the filing fee shall be $5.”

1 See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An 

action may proceed despite a party’s failure to pay this filing fee only if the party 

is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). See Andrews v. Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1051 (9th Cir. 2007); 

Rodriguez v. Cook, 169 F.3d 1176, 1177 (9th Cir. 1999).

Mr. Kiniti has not prepaid the filing fee required to commence any civil 

action, and he has not filed a motion to proceed IFP in compliance with 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(a). Therefore, no civil action can yet proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); 

Andrews, 493 F.3d at 1051. Moreover, Mr. Kiniti did not file his petition along 

with a completed civil cover sheet, as required by Local Civil Rule 3.1. See 

CivLR 3.1.

C. BIA Has the Discretion To Grant Petitioner’s Requested Relief

Because the Court dismisses for lack of personal jurisdiction, the Court 

need not reach whether a stay of removal proceedings while an appeal is 

pending before the BIA is available as a form of relief under § 2241. The Court 

notes, however, that if the BIA enterains an interlocutory appeal where a 

significant issue is raised that affects the administration of the immigrations laws, 

then the BIA may grant a stay of proceedings while the interlocutory appeal is 

pending. Matter of K-, 20 I. & N. Dec. 418, 419-20 (BIA 1991). Thus, petitioner 

 

1

In addition to the $350 statutory fee, civil litigants must pay an additional administrative fee of 

$50. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(b); Judicial Conference Schedule of Fees, District Court Misc. Fee

Schedule, § 14 (eff. Sept. 1, 2018). The additional $50 administrative fee does not apply to 

persons granted leave to proceed IFP. Id.

Case 3:19-cv-00174-BTM-MDD Document 2 Filed 02/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

19-cv-174-BTM-MDD

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

may be able to seek the relief requested here before the BIA.

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court dismisses the petition, (ECF No. 1),

for lack of personal jurisdiction and for failure to pay the filing fee or request IFP 

status.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00174-BTM-MDD Document 2 Filed 02/05/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6