Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06306/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-06306-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AHMADOU SANKARA,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, et al.,

Respondent.

Case No. 19-cv-06306-SI 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION

Re: Dkt. No. 12

Petitioner filed this habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the legality of his 

custody by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), pending his removal from the 

United States. At the time of filing, he was incarcerated at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility 

in Battavia, New York, but has since been removed and now is living in the Republic of Cote 

d’Ivoire. The Court dismissed this action on January 6, 2020, because the petitioner had failed to 

keep the Court informed of his current address. Petitioner has now filed a motion for 

reconsideration. Docket No. 12. The motion for reconsideration is difficult to understand but 

appears to state that petitioner would like to proceed with his action now that he can provide an 

address to the Court. 

The district of confinement is the proper venue for a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 

28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004); Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 

864 F.2d 804, 813 (D.C. Cir. 1988); McCoy v. United States Bd. of Parole, 537 F.2d 962, 966 (8th 

Cir. 1976). Here, petitioner was in custody in Genesee County, located in the Western District of 

New York at the time he filed his habeas petition. The Western District of New York would have 

been the proper venue, but the Northern District of California was not and is not the proper venue 

for this action. The district court shall dismiss an action filed in the wrong venue, unless the interest 

Case 3:19-cv-06306-SI Document 13 Filed 02/10/20 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

of justice supports transfer to a district in which it could have been brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 

The Court will not reconsider the dismissal and reopen this action because the action cannot 

proceed in this Court. It is an undue consumption of judicial resources to reopen an action simply 

to dismiss it as having been filed in the wrong venue. The interest of justice does not support transfer 

of the action to the Western District of New York because petitioner already filed petitions for writ 

of habeas corpus in that court to challenge his detention and removal. See Sankara v. Barr, W. D. 

N.Y. No. 19-cv-174 LJV, and Sankara v. Sessions, W. D. N.Y. 18-cv-1066 LJV. For these reasons, 

the motion for reconsideration is DENIED. Docket No. 12. The Court will not entertain any more 

motions or requests in this closed case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2020

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:19-cv-06306-SI Document 13 Filed 02/10/20 Page 2 of 2