1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6

VENANCIO ESTEBAN RIEGO,

7 Case No. 24-cv-01860-DMR (PR) Petitioner, 8 v. 9 ORDER OF TRANSFER

CURRENT OR ACTING FIELD OFFICE

10 DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO FIELD

OFFICE, UNITED STATES

11 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 Venancio Esteban Riego, a non-citizen detainee currently confined at the Golden State 15 Annex (“GSA”) in McFarland, California, filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus under 16 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his prolonged detention without a hearing as unconstitutional. Dkt. 17 1 at 2. Petitioner names several Respondents, including the Field Office Director of the United 18 States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) located in San Francisco, as the one 19 “responsible for carrying out ICE’s detention operations” at GSA and for “adjudicating requests 20 for release from those detained there.” Id. at 3. Petitioner cites several cases filed in the Northern 21 District of California in which judges in the district exercised jurisdiction over similar section 22 2241 petitions naming the San Francisco Field Officer Director as a respondent. Id. at 3-4. 23 However, the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Doe v. Garland, makes clear that the proper 24 respondent for a section 2241 petition is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being 25 held. See 109 F.4th 1188, 1198-99 (9th Cir. 2024). In reversing the district court’s decision in 26 Doe, the Ninth Circuit held the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over the petitioner’s 27 section 2241 petition because he failed to name his immediate custodian as the respondent and 1 a section 2241 petition, “jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Id. at 2 1192 (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,443 (2004)); see also Lopez-Marroquin v. Barr, 3 955 F.3d 759, 759-60 (9th Cir. 2020) (applying the district of confinement rule to a section 2241 4 petition involving a non-citizen’s challenge to his immigration detention). 5 Like the petitioner in Doe, Petitioneris confined at GSA. He failed to name his immediate 6 custodian as the respondent, and he filed his petition outside the district of his confinement. Thus, 7 under Doe,this court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s section2241 petition. Here, the only 8 district that has jurisdiction over the petition is the Eastern District of California, where GSA is 9 located and where Petitioner is currently confined. 10 Where a case is filed in the wrong division or district, the court“shall dismiss, or if it be in 11 the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been 12 brought.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); see also Lopez-Marroquin, 955 F.3d at 760 (ordering the 13 transfer of immigrant detainee’s section 2241 petition to the district where the petitioner was 14 confined). 15 Petitionercould have filed this action in the Eastern District as the only district that has 16 jurisdiction over his section 2241 petition, and he could have named the warden or facility 17 administrator of GSA as the respondent. Accordingly, the court finds that the interests of justice 18 are best served by ordering the immediate transfer of this case to the Eastern District of California, 19 in lieu of dismissal, which would only delay this matter and unduly burden Petitioner. 20 The Clerk of the Court shall terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file to the 21 Eastern District of California. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: September 30, 2024 24 ______________________________________

DONNA M. RYU

25 Chief Magistrate Judge 26 27