Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jose Alfonso Arias Garcia, who is in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on October 7, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle, Case No. C26-3804-MLP. He alleged that his re-detention by ICE in August 2026 violated his Fifth Amendment right to procedural due process. The court issued an order to show cause the following day, October 8, 2026.
On October 13, 2026, Respondents filed a notice advising that on October 4, 2026 — before the federal petition was filed in the Western District of Washington — Arias Garcia had been transferred to the California City Correctional Center in Kern County, California. Respondents argued that because the petition was filed outside the district of his confinement and failed to name his immediate custodian, the court lacked jurisdiction, and they asked that the petition be dismissed without prejudice or, in the alternative, transferred to the Eastern District of California, where he was then confined. Respondents expressly took no position on whether dismissal or transfer was more appropriate. On October 19, 2026, Arias Garcia filed a response requesting that the court transfer his petition to the Eastern District of California.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that Section 2241 authorizes federal habeas relief for individuals who are 'in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.' Under Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004), a petitioner challenging present physical confinement must name as respondent his immediate custodian — the warden or custodian of the facility where he is detained — and must file the petition in the district of confinement, because jurisdiction over a federal habeas petition lies in the district where the immediate custodian is located.
The parties agreed that Arias Garcia had been detained in the Eastern District of California since the time he filed his petition, so jurisdiction was proper in that district and not in the Western District of Washington. Under the Federal Courts Improvement Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1631, when a court finds a want of jurisdiction it shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer the action to a court in which it could have been brought. The court found that transfer to the Eastern District of California would facilitate efficient resolution of the habeas claim.
Accordingly, the court ordered that the case be transferred to the Eastern District of California, directed the Clerk to immediately effectuate the transfer and close the case, and directed the Clerk to send copies of the order to all counsel of record. The order was dated October 19, 2026, and signed by United States Magistrate Judge Michelle L. Peterson.
Key Takeaways
- A habeas petitioner challenging present physical confinement must name his immediate custodian and file in the district of confinement; jurisdiction lies where that custodian is located, per Rumsfeld v. Padilla.
- When jurisdiction is lacking, 28 U.S.C. § 1631 permits — and here required, in the interest of justice — transfer to a proper court rather than dismissal without prejudice.
- Both parties agreed Arias Garcia had been detained in the Eastern District of California since filing, and the petitioner himself requested the transfer, supporting the interest-of-justice finding.
- The Clerk was ordered to effectuate the transfer immediately and close the case, with copies sent to all counsel of record.
- The order resolves only jurisdiction and venue; it does not decide the merits of Arias Garcia's Fifth Amendment due process challenge, which remains open in the transferee court.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the routine but consequential operation of the district-of-confinement rule in immigration detention cases: a petition filed in the wrong district is not simply thrown out when transfer can preserve it. By transferring under Section 1631 rather than dismissing without prejudice, the court avoided forcing a detained petitioner to refile and preserved his due process claim for resolution on the merits in the Eastern District of California.
Because the ruling is limited to jurisdiction, the substantive Fifth Amendment claim arising from the August 2026 re-detention remains unresolved and will be decided, if at all, by the Eastern District of California after the transfer is effectuated.