Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01080/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01080-1/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

GURMEET SINGH,

Petitioner,

v.

FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, SAN 

FRANCISCO FIELD OFFICE, UNITED 

STATES IMMIGRATION AND 

CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 24-cv-03472-RMI 

ORDER RE: RESPONDENT’S 

MOTION TO DISMISS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 8, 9

Petitioner, a federal detainee, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges his prolonged detention by the United States Immigration 

and Custom Enforcement (ICE) at the Mesa Verde Processing Center in Bakersfield, California.

Now pending before the court is Respondent’s motion to dismiss (dkt. 8), seeking dismissal of the 

petition on the grounds that the court lacks jurisdiction. Petitioner filed a brief opposition (dkt. 9)

and Respondent filed a reply (dkt. 10). For the reasons stated below, the case is transferred to the 

Eastern District of California.

Petitioner names several Respondents, including the Field Office Director of the ICE office 

located in San Francisco, who is Petitioner’s legal custodian and has the authority to release him. 

(dkt. 2 at 1-2). Petitioner cites several cases filed in the Northern District of California in which 

judges in the district exercised jurisdiction over similar § 2241 petitions naming the San Francisco 

Field Officer Director as a respondent. (Id. at 2). However, the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in 

Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188 (9th Cir. 2024), makes clear that the proper respondent for a §

2241 petition is the warden of the facility where the detainee is being held. In reversing the district 

court’s decision in Doe, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred in exercising 

Case 1:24-cv-01080-HBK Document 11 Filed 09/09/24 Page 1 of 3
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

jurisdiction over the petitioner’s § 2241 petition because he failed to name his immediate 

custodian as the respondent and filed the petition outside the district of his confinement. Id. at 

1199. Doe also makes clear that for a § 2241 petition, “jurisdiction lies in only one district: the 

district of confinement.” Id. at 1198 (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004)); see 

also Lopez-Marroquin v. Barr, 955 F.3d 759, 759-60 (9th Cir. 2020) (applying the district of 

confinement rule to a § 2241 petition involving a non-citizen’s challenge to his immigration 

detention).

Contrary to Petitioner’s argument, Doe applies even though it was decided after Petitioner 

filed this case. “[I]t is well established that a court generally applies the law in effect at the time of 

its decision, and that if the law changes while the case is on appeal the appellate court applies the 

new rule.’’ Lambert v. Blodgett, 393 F.3d 943, 973 n.21 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Thorpe v. Durham 

Hous. Auth., 393 U.S. 268, 281 (1969)).

Petitioner is confined at the Mesa Verde Processing Center in Bakersfield, California 

which is located in the Eastern District of California. He failed to name his immediate custodian as 

the respondent, and he filed his petition outside the district of his confinement. Thus, under Doe, 

this court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s § 2241 petition. Here, the only district that has 

jurisdiction over the petition is the Eastern District of California, where the Mesa Verde 

Processing Center is located and where Petitioner is currently confined.

Where a case is filed in the wrong division or district, the court “shall dismiss, or if it be in 

the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been

brought.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); see also Lopez-Marroquin, 955 F.3d at 760 (ordering the 

transfer of immigrant detainee’s § 2241 petition to the district where the petitioner was confined).

Petitioner could have filed this action in the Eastern District as the only district that has 

jurisdiction over his § 2241 petition, and he could have named the warden or facility administrator 

of the Mesa Verde Processing Center as the respondent. Accordingly, the court finds that the 

interests of justice are best served by ordering the immediate transfer of this case to the Eastern 

District of California, in lieu of dismissal, which would only delay this matter and unduly burden 

Petitioner. 

Case 1:24-cv-01080-HBK Document 11 Filed 09/09/24 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

The clerk shall VACATE all pending motions (dkts. 8, 9) and TRANSFER this case to 

the Eastern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 9, 2024

ROBERT M. ILLMAN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:24-cv-01080-HBK Document 11 Filed 09/09/24 Page 3 of 3