1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 HECTOR LOPEZ, Case No. 23-cv-06462-VKD

9 Petitioner, ORDER OF DISMISSAL FOR LACK 10 v. OF JURISDICTION; TERMINATING MOTION 11 ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 11 Respondents. 12

13 14 Petitioner Hector Lopez filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

, asserting that his prolonged civil immigration detention at the Golden State Annex 16 (“GSA”) violates his constitutional rights. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 1-2. Mr. Lopez names several 17 Respondents, including the Field Office Director of the United States Immigration and Customs 18 Enforcement (“ICE”) located in San Francisco.

. He alleges that he is “detained in this 19 District,” and that the Northern District of California is the proper venue for this action.

. 20 The Court found the petition stated a cognizable due process claim and ordered 21 Respondent to answer. Dkt. No. 6. Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition as moot 22 because Mr. Lopez has been released from detention and removed from the United States. Dkt. 23 No. 11. Mr. Lopez has not filed a response. 24 The Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Doe v. Garland, No. 23-15361, -- F.4th --,

3561360 (9th Cir. July 29, 2024), makes clear that the proper respondent for a § 2241 petition is 26 the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held. In reversing the district court’s 27 decision in Doe, the Ninth Circuit held the district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over the 1 Id. at *8. Doe also makes clear that for a § 2241 petition, “jurisdiction lies in only one district: the 2 district of confinement.” Jd. at *9 (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla,

(2004)); see also 3 Lopez-Marroquin v. Barr,

(9th Cir. 2020) (applying the district of 4 || confinement rule to a § 2241 petition involving a non-citizen’s challenge to his immigration 5 detention). 6 Unlike the petitioner in Doe, Mr. Lopez correctly named his immediate custodian, Warden 7 M. Wofford, as a respondent. Dkt. No. 1 {] 17. However, like the petitioner in Doe, at the time he 8 filed his petition, Mr. Lopez was confined at GSA in McFarland, California, which (contrary to 9 Mr. Lopez’s petition) is located in the Eastern District of California. See id. § 1; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1; 10 || Doe,

at *1. Thus, under Doe, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Mr. Lopez’s § 11 2241 petition. The only district that has jurisdiction over the petition is the Eastern District of 12 || California, where GSA is located and where Mr. Lopez was confined at the time of filing. 5 13 Where a case is filed in the wrong division or district, the Court “shall dismiss, or if it be in 14 || the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been 3 15 || brought.” See

(a). While Mr. Lopez could have filed his § 2241 petition in the a 16 || Eastern District of California, Respondents’ unopposed motion to dismiss indicates that Mr. Lopez 3 17 has been removed from the United States. Dkt. No. 11. Accordingly, the Court finds that 18 dismissal of the action is appropriate because transfer of the petition to the Eastern District of 19 || California would serve no interest. 20 For the foregoing reasons, this petition is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2241(a). Respondent’s motion to dismiss shall be terminated as moot. Dkt No. 11. 22 This order terminates Docket No. 11. 23 The Clerk shall close the file. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: August 16, 2024 26

28 Virginia K. DeMarchi United States Magistrate Judge