Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06422/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06422-0/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

---

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

YASIR MEHMOOD,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 19-cv-06422-YGR (PR)

ORDER OF TRANSFER

Petitioner, a detainee of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), 

is currently incarcerated at the Krome Service Processing Center in Miami, Florida. He has filed a 

pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the legality of 

his custody by ICE, pending his removal from the United States. 

Generally, 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is the proper basis for a habeas petition by a state prisoner 

who is not held “pursuant to the judgment of a State court,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254, for instance a pretrial detainee, a prisoner awaiting extradition, or a prisoner whose conviction has been reversed on 

appeal. See Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626, 633 (7th Cir. 2000) (listing “pre-conviction 

custody, custody awaiting extradition, or other forms of custody that are possible without a 

conviction” as examples of when Section 2241 applies). Section 2241 is the proper basis for the 

instant petition because Petitioner is challenging his detention pending removal. 

Petitioner has chosen to file his action in the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of California, alleging that this is the proper venue because of the following reasons, 

which are mostly related to the petition for review (“PFR”) he filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals, which has jurisdiction over the immigration court which heard his case:

(a): pending PFR here, (b): judicial stay of removal from here, 

(c): stay of proceedings [for PFR] from here, (d): events of criminal 

conviction from here in Sausalito give rise to removal proceedings,

(e): [Immigration Judge (“IJ”)] ordered [case] removed in this circuit, 

(f): [Petitioner] reside[d] in Berkeley, (g): [Petitioner] work[ed] in 

Sacramento, (h): the witness in PFR resides and work[s] in San 

Francisco, (i): [Petitioner has] never been to Miami, [has] no 

connection [to Miami], (j): [Petitioner] got green card from San 

Case 4:19-cv-06422-YGR Document 5 Filed 11/22/19 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

Francisco, (k): [Petitioner] filed I-751 to renew green card here, [and] 

(l): good circuit judges who are not racist[s] are from here.

Dkt. 1 at 5 (brackets added).

Section 2241 allows “the [U.S.] 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). The Supreme Court has interpreted the “within their respective jurisdiction” 

language to mean that a Section 2241 petitioner challenging his present physical custody must file 

a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district of confinement. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 

426, 446-47 (2004). 

Here, Petitioner is confined in Miami, Florida, which lies within the venue of the Southern 

District of Florida. See 28 U.S.C. § 89(c). Therefore, the petition must be transferred because 

jurisdiction does not lie in this district. Petitioner’s assertion that he cannot get a fair hearing in 

the Southern District of Florida does not provide grounds for keeping the case in the Northern 

District of California because the assertion is unsupported by any plausible facts showing bias in 

that district. Cf. Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Comm’n v. NFL, 89 F.R.D. 497, 502-12 (C.D. 

Cal. 1981) (mere perception by defense that local jurors would be prejudiced due to adverse 

publicity is not sufficient for a transfer). 

Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and in the interests of justice, this case is 

TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1404(a); Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 446-47.

The Clerk shall terminate all pending motions as no longer pending in this district and 

transfer the entire file to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Judge

November 22, 2019

Case 4:19-cv-06422-YGR Document 5 Filed 11/22/19 Page 2 of 2