Jose Rodolfo Iglesias Parada v. Warden, Northwest Ice Processing Center; Field...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA JOSE RODOLFO IGLESIAS PARADA, Case No. 2:26-cv-00947-TMC Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING PETITION TO THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA v. WARDEN, NORTHWEST ICE PROCESSING CENTER; FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, ICE SEATTLE; SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, Respondents.

16 Before the Court is self-represented petitioner Jose Rodolfo Iglesias Parada’s (“Mr. Parada”) petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. 1. For these reasons, the Court ORDERS that Mr. Parada’s petition be immediately transferred to the District of Arizona.

20 On March 6, 2026, Respondents detained Mr. Parada and transferred him to the Northwest ICE Processing Center (“NWIPC”) in Tacoma, Washington on March 8. Dkt. 7 at 1.

22 On March 17, the government transferred Mr. Parada again to Florence, Arizona, where he is facing imminent removal. Dkt. 8 at 2. On March 20, the Court received Mr. Parada’s petition, l which appears to have been mailed from Baltimore on March 13. See Dkt. 7 p. 2. Importantly, || Mr. Parada was no longer detained in this District when his petition was filed.

3 The habeas statute permits the Court to grant writs of habeas corpus “‘within their || respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Habeas jurisdiction, generally, “lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004). This Court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Parada’s petition as he was no longer confined in this District at the time his petition was filed. Mr. Parada is now detained in Florence, Arizona, which is located in g__ || the sole District of Arizona.

9 Respondents ask the Court to either dismiss or transfer Mr. Parada’s petition to a court 109 with jurisdiction over his current confinement. Dkt. 7 at 2. The Court finds that transfer is 11 appropriate here. Whenever a civil action 1s filed in a court that lacks jurisdiction, “the court 12 shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action” to a court “in which the action...

13 could have been brought at the time it was filed[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1631. Transfer is in the interest 14 of justice because Mr. Parada faces imminent removal and dismissal would result in unnecessary 15 delay. Mr. Parada’s petition will “proceed as if it had been filed in . . . the court to which it is || transferred[.]” Jd.

17 The Clerk of Court is respectfully requested to immediately transfer this case to the 18 District of Arizona for all further proceedings. The clerk is also requested to close this case after 19 its transfer and send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and to any party 20 appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.

71 Dated this 24th day of March, 2026.

23 Tiffany M. Cartwright United States District Judge