Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Mirna Galan Segura, an immigration detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California. She challenges the lawfulness of her civil immigration detention at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center. The respondents include Markwayne Mullin and others. The order does not describe the specific grounds of her challenge, and it makes no findings about the merits.
Respondents moved to dismiss on the ground that she filed in the wrong venue. The court began from its independent obligation to examine its own jurisdiction. It stated that jurisdiction over a § 2241 petition lies only in the district of confinement and that jurisdiction is established at the time of filing. The order states that Petitioner was confined at Adelanto when she filed and that it appears she remains there. Adelanto is in San Bernardino County, so the court concluded that jurisdiction lies in the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 84(c).
The Court’s Holding
The court denied Respondents' motion to dismiss and directed the Clerk to transfer the case to the Central District of California. It relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1631, under which a court may transfer a civil action, including a habeas petition, on its own initiative when three conditions are met. The transferring court must lack jurisdiction, the transferee court must have been able to exercise jurisdiction when the action was filed, and transfer must serve the interest of justice. The court found all three satisfied.
On the third condition, the court reasoned that transfer, rather than dismissal, avoids unnecessary delay. It cited an earlier Eastern District decision, Valverde Cantillo v. Warden, as finding the same. The order is purely a jurisdictional and venue ruling. It does not decide whether Petitioner's detention is lawful, and it does not rule on any request for release or other relief. Those questions, along with any further briefing or scheduling, are left to the Central District. The order does not address whether she must refile anything. It simply sends the existing case file to the transferee court.
Key Takeaways
- A § 2241 habeas petition challenging immigration detention must be brought in the district where the petitioner is confined, and that is measured at the time of filing.
- A court that lacks jurisdiction over a habeas petition may transfer it on its own initiative under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 if the transferee court could have heard it when filed and transfer serves the interest of justice.
- Here the court chose transfer over dismissal because it would avoid unnecessary delay, and it denied the government's dismissal motion for that reason.
- Adelanto's location in San Bernardino County places petitions by detainees held there in the Central District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 84(c).
- The order decides only venue and jurisdiction, so the lawfulness of the detention remains entirely open for the receiving court.
Why It Matters
This is a short, unpublished district-court order, so it carries no precedential weight. It applies settled Ninth Circuit authority, citing Doe v. Garland, Johnson v. Gill and Cruz-Aguilera v. I.N.S., to a recurring problem: detainees filing habeas petitions in a district other than the one where they are held. The order shows that a respondent's motion to dismiss for improper venue need not end the case, because the court may instead move it to the correct district.
For detainees, particularly those without counsel, the practical effect is that a filing error about where to sue does not by itself defeat the petition. For the government, the order signals that this court will treat the question as one of jurisdiction and will not simply dismiss. Only the transfer is decided here, and the substantive challenge to detention will be addressed, if at all, by the Central District.