1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAYTHAM FAWZI SALAH No. 1:25-cv-00991-SKO (HC)

MADHOUN,

12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 14 THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

ON HABEAS CORPUS,

15 Respondent. 16

17 18 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 20 Generally, “a habeas petitioner challenging his present physical custody within the United 21 States must file in the district in which he is detained at the time of filing and must name as 22 respondent his immediate custodian.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 449, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 23 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004); Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 2024). For “core habeas 24 petitions,” “jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Trump v. J.G.G., 25 ___ US. ___, ___, 145 S.Ct. 1003, 1005-06, 221 L.Ed.2d 529 (2025) (citing Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 26 at 443). At the time of filing, Petitioner was detained at an Immigration and Customs 27 Enforcement (“ICE”) detention facility in El Paso, Texas. Thus, Petitioner did not file the instant 28 petition in the proper district. The appropriate remedy for the procedural defect is transfer of the 1 petition to the district of confinement. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631; Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382, 390- 2 93 (2d Cir. 2025). 3 In the interests of justice and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this 4 action is TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for Western District of Texas. 5

IT IS SO ORDERED.

6

7 Dated: August 12, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28