1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LOC MINH NGUYEN, 1:25-cv-01175-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE 13 v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 14 WARDEN OF THE OTAY MESA CALIFORNIA DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondent. 16

17 Petitioner, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, has filed a habeas corpus action 18 pursuant to

. 19 The federal venue statute requires that a civil action, other than one based on diversity 20 jurisdiction, be brought only in “(1) a judicial district where any defendant resides, if all defendants 21 are residents of the State in which the district is located, (2) a judicial district in which a substantial 22 part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of the property 23 that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) if there is no district in which an action may 24 otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is 25 subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to such action.”

(b). 26

27

28 1 Here, the petitioner is challenging his continued detention by Respondents at Otay Mesa 2 Detention Facility, which is located in San Diego County in the Southern District of California. 3 Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern 4 District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong 5 district to the correct district. See

(a); Starnes v. McGuire,

, 932 6 (D.C. Cir. 1974). 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States 8 District Court for the Southern District of California. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: September 16, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12

13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28