Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02763/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02763-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

16cv2763-CAB-BLM

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

Hung Bui,

Petitioner,

v.

Troy Lund, Bureau of Immigration 

Customs Enforcement; Jeh Johnson, 

Secretary of Homeland Security; Loretta 

Lynch, Attorney General,

Respondents.

Case No.: 16cv2763-CAB-BLM

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

On November 7, 2016, Petitioner Hung Bui (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed 

a “Motion to Issue Order Directing Respondents to Answer to Abuse of Process Claim 

due to their Failure to Lift a Department of Homeland Security Detainer Pursuant to 8 

U.S.C. §§1252 & 1253,” which Petitioner alleges is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 

(“Petition”).

DISCUSSION

Petitioner commenced this action against Troy Lund, Bureau of Immigration 

Customs Enforcement; Jeh Johnson, Secretary of Homeland Security; and Loretta Lynch, 

Attorney General. See Pet. at 1. However, the proper respondent in a habeas case is the 

person having custody, i.e. legal control, over the petitioner. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Rumsfeld 

Case 3:16-cv-02763-CAB-BLM Document 4 Filed 12/28/16 Page 1 of 3
2

16cv2763-CAB-BLM

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

v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 439 (2004). For ordinary prisoners, such a custodian is the 

prisoner's warden. Chatman–Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 811 (D.C. Cir. 1988). 

Here, Petitioner has not named a warden.

In addition, a habeas petition under § 2241 must be filed in the federal court with 

territorial jurisdiction over the respondent. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) (providing that 

“[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by ... the district courts ... within their 

respective jurisdictions”); Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239

(D.C.Cir.2004) (“[A] district court may not entertain a habeas petition involving present 

physical custody unless the respondent custodian is within its territorial jurisdiction.”). 

According to the Petition, Petitioner is incarcerated at the Federal Correctional Institution 

in Mendota, California, which is within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of California. See 

https://www.bop.gov/locations/institutions/men/; 28 U.S.C. §84(b). Therefore, even if 

Petitioner were to name the warden of the institution where he is incarcerated, the 

Petition must be filed in the Eastern District of California.

Finally, pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, the Court takes judicial notice 

of the court records in the United States District Court for the Central District of 

California in Case No. 16cv1138-RGK-RAO, where Petitioner filed a nearly identical 

petition against the same respondents, which petition was summarily dismissed. [See 

C.D. Cal. Case No. 16cv1138, Docket No. 5.]1 Thus, while this Court has discretion to 

transfer the case to the Eastern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §16312, the Court finds that 

it is in the interests of justice to dismiss the Petition.

/ / / / /

 

1 This Court adopts the reasoning of the Central District in Docket No. 3 as additional grounds for 

dismissal of this Petition. See Case No. 16cv1138, Docket No. 5 at 2-4.

2 Section 1631 gives federal courts “authority to make a single decision upon concluding that it lacks 

jurisdiction-whether to dismiss the case or, ‘in the interest of justice,’ to transfer it to a court of appeals 

that has jurisdiction.” Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 803, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 

100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988).

Case 3:16-cv-02763-CAB-BLM Document 4 Filed 12/28/16 Page 2 of 3
3

16cv2763-CAB-BLM

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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Petition 

shall be DISMISSED.

Dated: December 28, 2016

Case 3:16-cv-02763-CAB-BLM Document 4 Filed 12/28/16 Page 3 of 3