IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

SYED HOSAIN ALI, § 

 § 

Petitioner, § 

 § 

V. § No. 3:22-cv-785-L-BN 

 § 

MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney § 

General of the United States, ET AL., § 

 § 

Respondents. § 

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Petitioner Syed Hosain Ali, detained by the U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) at a facility in Eden, Texas, filed, with the assistance of counsel, 

an application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 requesting that he 

be released from custody pending his removal from the United States. See Dkt. No. 

1. Petitioner paid the applicable filing fee. And United States District Judge Sam A. 

Lindsay referred this matter to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for 

pretrial management under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference. 

The undersigned enters these findings of fact, conclusions of law, and 

recommendation that, because the Court transfer the habeas petition to the Abilene 

Division of this district, where Petitioner is physically confined. 

“In general, ‘[t]he only district that may consider a habeas corpus challenge to 

present physical confinement pursuant to § 2241 is the district court in which the 

[petitioner] is confined.’” Dada v. Witte, Civ. A. No. 20-1093, 2020 WL 1674129, at *2 

(E.D. La. Apr. 6, 2020) (quoting United States v. McPhearson, 451 F. App’x 384, 387 

Case 1:22-cv-00052-H Document 5 Filed 04/07/22 Page 1 of 3 PageID 14
- 2 - 

(5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citing, in turn, Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442-

43 (2004); Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370, 375 n.5 (5th Cir. 2001))). 

And, “[i]n challenges to present physical confinement,” the United States 

Supreme Court has “reaffirm[ed] that the immediate custodian, not a supervisory 

official who exercises legal control, is the proper respondent.” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 

439-40 (further noting that, “[i]f the ‘legal control’ test applied to physical-custody 

challenges, a convicted prisoner would be able to name the State or the Attorney 

General as a respondent to a § 2241 petition” but, “[a]s the statutory language, 

established practice, and our precedent demonstrate, that is not the case”). 

The Court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district or division “to any 

district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); see also 

id. § 1631; Middlebrooks v. Smith, 735 F.2d 431, 432 (11th Cir. 1984) (“Section 1631 

is analogous in operation to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a).”); Day v. Chandler, 55 

F. App’x 716, 2002 WL 31933183, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 20, 2002) (per curiam) (“The 

Eastern District also properly transferred the petition to the Northern District. See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a), 1631.”). And the Court may raise this issue sua sponte. See Mills 

v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 886 F.2d 758, 761 (5th Cir. 1989). 

Here, because, when he filed this matter, Petitioner was physically confined at 

an ICE facility in Eden, Texas, in Concho County, within the Abilene Division of this 

judicial district, see 28 U.S.C. § 124(a)(4), the Court should transfer his habeas 

petition to that division of this district under Sections 1406(a) and 1631. 

Case 1:22-cv-00052-H Document 5 Filed 04/07/22 Page 2 of 3 PageID 15
- 3 - 

Recommendation

The Court should sua sponte transfer this habeas action to the Abilene Division 

of this judicial district. 

A copy of these findings, conclusions, and recommendation shall be served on 

all parties in the manner provided by law. And any party who objects to any part of 

these findings, conclusions, and recommendation must file specific written objections 

within 14 days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV.

P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or 

recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and 

specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions, and recommendation 

where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by 

reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure 

to file specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the 

factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or 

adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. 

United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996). 

DATED: April 7, 2022 

_________________________________________ 

DAVID L. HORAN 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00052-H Document 5 Filed 04/07/22 Page 3 of 3 PageID 16