United States District Court for the Southern District of California, 2025

(HC) Mgweeney v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Facility

(HC) Mgweeney v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Facility
United States District Court for the Southern District of California · Decided September 17, 2025
(HC) Mgweeney v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Facility

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EMMANUEL I. MGWEENEY, Case No. 1:25-cv-01200-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WARDEN OF THE OTAY MESA CALIFORNIA DETENTION FACILITY, et al., Respondents.

18 Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

20 “Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004). The Ninth Circuit has “affirm[ed] the application of the immediate custodian and district of confinement rules to core habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, including those filed by immigrant detainees.” Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1199 (9th Cir. 2024).

26 Here, Petitioner challenges his present physical custody at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego, California. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Therefore, venue is proper in the district of | court. . . and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the | interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any other such court . . . in which the action | or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed ....” 28 U.S.C. 8 1631.

4 | Accordingly, rather than dismissal, the Court finds that transfer of the petition to the United | States District Court of the Southern District of California is appropriate in the interest of justice.

6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the | United States District Court for the Southern District of California. This Court has not ruled on | the motion for appointment of counsel. (ECF No. 2.)

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

11] Dated: _ September 17, 2025 [sf ey — 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.