Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01249/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-01249-0/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

---

Case No. 19-cv-01249 NC (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

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

SURJIT SINGH,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM P. BARR, et al.,

 Respondents.

Case No. 19-cv-01249 NC (PR) 

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Petitioner, an immigration detainee, has filed a federal petition for writ of habeas 

corpus, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner is currently being held at the GEO-run Aurora 

Contract Detention Facility in Aurora, Colorado. Petitioner’s underlying federal habeas 

petition challenges his current detention. Specifically, petitioner represents that he “has 

been detained in immigration custody for over 17 months” without a hearing or custody 

redetermination. See Dkt. No. 1.

Section 2241 allows “the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and 

any circuit judge” to grant writs of habeas corpus “within their respective jurisdictions.” 

28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Relying on the “within their respective jurisdictions” language, the 

Case 5:19-cv-01249-NC Document 10 Filed 03/26/19 Page 1 of 2
Case No. 19-cv-01249 NC (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

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

Supreme Court held that personal jurisdiction over a federal habeas corpus petition lies 

exclusively in the single federal judicial district in which both the custodian of the prisoner 

and the prisoner reside. Ahrens v. Clark, 335 U.S. 188, 190-91 (1948). Although this 

court may have jurisdiction to hear a petition, see Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 

410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973), Braden also makes clear that “venue considerations may, 

and frequently will, argue in favor of adjudication of the habeas claim in the jurisdiction 

where the habeas petitioner is confined.” Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 814 

(D.C. Cir. 1988). Federal courts generally take the position that the district of confinement 

“is normally the forum most convenient to the parties,” McCoy v. United States Bd. of 

Parole, 537 F.2d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 1976), and therefore exercise discretion in transferring 

petitions to the district of confinement “in the interests of justice” pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 

1404(a). See id.; see also Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249-50 (9th Cir. 1989) 

(suggesting that even where district court has personal jurisdiction over custodian, 

preferred forum is district where petitioner is confined). 

Because petitioner is located within the jurisdiction of the District of Colorado, this 

case is TRANSFERRED to the District of Colorado. See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Clerk 

shall terminate all pending motions and transfer this matter forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-01249-NC Document 10 Filed 03/26/19 Page 2 of 2