Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01006/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01006-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Petitioner is a prisoner with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

2241 (“section 2241”). Petitioner is incarcerated at a federal detention center in Eloy, Arizona. 

Because Petitioner is confined in Arizona and the facts giving rise to his challenge occurred in 

Arizona, this case should have been brought in the United States District Court, District of 

Arizona, and it will be transferred there.

In addition, it appears that Petitioner had filed a substantially similar petition in the Central 

District of California, which was transferred first to the Eastern District of California and then, on 

July 9, 2015, to the District of Arizona. The District of Arizona case number is 2:15-CV-1273. 

Consolidation may be appropriate. 

Petitioner alleges that he is a citizen of Mexico, and was admitted into the United States in 

1994. Doc. 1 at ¶ 17. He lived in Salem, Oregon, where he has two minor children, for several 

decades. Id. at ¶ 6. He alleges that he was convicted in Marion County, Oregon for sex abuse, but 

the case was eventually “vacated.” Id. at ¶19. He has been in immigration detention since July 

GABRIEL FLORES DELGADO,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, ET AL.,

Respondents.

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1006----SMS (HC)

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Related case: 2:15-cv-1273 (D. Ariz.)

 

Case 1:15-cv-01006-SMS Document 3 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 3
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

2012. Id. at ¶ 1. He alleges that he is being detained pending a decision on whether he is to be 

removed from the United States. Id. at 5:13-18. At a bond hearing in March 2015, pursuant to 

Casas-Castrillon v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008), an immigration judge 

found that Petitioner was a danger to the community and should not be released. Id. at ¶ 25. 

Petitioner believes that the Department of Homeland Security had not met its burden at the bond 

hearing to show by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner was a danger to the community. 

Id. at ¶ 25, 26. He points to his disciplinary record, criminal record, mental health reports, 

evidence of rehabilitation, history of flight, prior immigration history, and family ties. Id. at ¶ 26.

Petitioner has been waiting for his removal trial for almost three years. Id. at ¶ 34. Petitioner 

desires to be released on bond subject to supervision in order to care for his family and his medical 

needs. See Doc. 1. 

Venue in a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of 

conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitions challenging execution of sentence are preferably 

heard in the district where the inmate is confined. See Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th 

Cir. 1989). Petitions challenging conviction are preferably heard in the district of conviction. 

Habeas L. R. 2254-3(a) (b). “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of 

justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might 

have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has 

not been commenced in the proper court, may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the 

proper court. 

Here, Petitioner states that venue is proper in the Arizona District Court because he is 

detained in Eloy, Arizona and the records to his claim are likely to be found in Arizona. Doc. 1 at 

¶ 16, 9:2-7. He brings this action against respondents who are mostly located in Arizona including 

two immigration judges, the warden at the Eloy Correctional Center, and the Arizona director for 

the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Petitioner disagrees with the results of at least

one bond hearing, at which an immigration judge found that his release would pose a danger to the 

community. He believes he is being held in violation of his constitutional rights. 

Petitioner is both being held in Arizona and is challenging actions occurring in Arizona.

Case 1:15-cv-01006-SMS Document 3 Filed 07/22/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

Transfer to the District of Arizona would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and 

the interest of justice. Hence, venue in Arizona is preferred. 

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is transferred to the United States 

District Court for the District of Arizona.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2015 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-01006-SMS Document 3 Filed 07/22/15 Page 3 of 3