UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 20-23482-CIV-ALTONAGA/Reid

TERRANCE TAYLOR,

Petitioner,

v.

U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al.,

Respondents.

_______________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on Magistrate Judge Reid’s Report and 

Recommendation [ECF No. 4], entered on September 4, 2020. On August 21, 2020, Petitioner 

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. [Section] 2241 [ECF No. 1]. At 

the time of filing, Petitioner was being detained at Glades County Detention Center in Moore 

Haven, Florida. (See Pet. 5–6). Petitioner is thus detained in the judicial district of the United 

States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, not in this District. See 28 U.S.C. § 89(b). 

As the Report and Recommendation correctly concludes, the Court is not the appropriate venue to 

entertain Petitioner’s Petition. (See R. & R. 2–3).

“The federal habeas statute straightforwardly provides that the proper respondent to a 

habeas petition is the person who has custody over the petitioner[]”; and “[t]he consistent use of 

the definite article in reference to the custodian indicates that there is generally only one proper 

respondent to a given [petitioner’s] habeas petition[]” — that is, “‘the person’ with the ability to 

produce the [petitioner’s] body before the habeas court.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 

(2004) (alterations added; other alteration adopted; quotation marks omitted; citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 

2242, 2243). 

Case 1:20-cv-23482-CMA Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2020 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 20-23482-CIV-ALTONAGA/Reid

2

Although Padilla left open the question whether these principles apply to habeas 

“petition[s] filed by [] alien[s] pending deportation[,]” id. at 435 n.8 (alterations added), numerous 

courts in this District have transferred habeas petitions filed by alien-detainees challenging their 

physical detention to the district of confinement. See, e.g., Juste v. Sessions, No. 18-23187-Civ, 

2018 WL 10509567 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 20, 2018); Miclisse v. United States, No. 18-cv-20218, 2018 

WL 7324111 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 22, 2018); Fort v. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 18-23187-Civ, 2018 

WL 1867020 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 19, 2018).

In the interest of justice, Petitioner’s Petition will be transferred to the Middle District of 

Florida, the jurisdiction in which Petitioner is detained. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). The Report 

advises Petitioner he has time to file objections to the Report (see id. 2), but the Court sees no basis 

for an objection.1

 The Court agrees with Judge Reid and finds the Petition must be transferred to 

the appropriate venue. Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 

[ECF No. 4] is ADOPTED. The Clerk is instructed to transfer this case to the United States 

District Court for the Middle District of Florida and mark this case as CLOSED in this District.

Any pending motions are DENIED as moot.

DONE AND ORDERED in Miami, Florida, this 4th day of September, 2020.

 _________________________________

 CECILIA M. ALTONAGA

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

cc: Magistrate Judge Lisette M. Reid; 

Petitioner, Terrance Taylor, pro se

1 Should Petitioner have a basis to disagree with the Report and this Order, he may file a motion for 

reconsideration of this Order. 

Case 1:20-cv-23482-CMA Document 5 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2020 Page 2 of 2