Case 1:25-cv-07959-GBD Document 4-1 (Court only) Filed OY/26/25 Pagel □□□

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RYAN GITTENS, Petitioner, -against- 25-CV-7959 (GBD) DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND TRANSFER ORDER SECURITY, Respondent. GEORGE B. DANIELS, United States District Judge: Petitioner, who is currently in immigration detention at Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, Winn Parish, Louisiana, brings this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to

, seeking to challenge his detention. For the following reasons, this petition is transferred to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. In order to entertain a habeas corpus petition under

, a court must have jurisdiction over the custodian. See Braden v. 30th Jud. Cir. Ct. of Ky.,

(1973) (writ of habeas corpus does not act upon the prisoner who seek relief, but upon his or her custodian). Thus, the jurisdiction of a Aabeas petition challenging a petitioner’s physical confinement generally lies in the district of his confinement. Rumsfeld v. Padilla,

(2004). Petitioner is detained at Winn Correctional Center in Winn Parish, Louisiana, which is located in the judicial district of the United States District Court for Western District of Louisiana. See

(c). Therefore, in the interest of justice, this Court transfers this petition to the Western District of Louisiana. See

(a). The Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. Whether Petitioner should be permitted to proceed further

Case 1:25-cv-07959-GBD Document 4-1 (Courtonly) Filed 09/26/25 Page 2 □□ □

without payment of fees is a determination to be made by the transferee court. This order closes this case. The Court also directs the Clerk of Court to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana immediately upon entry of this order; the Court waives the seven-day waiting period articulated in Local Civil Rule 83.1. The Court certifies, pursuant to

(a)(3), that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, and therefore in forma pauperis status is denied for the purpose of an appeal. See Coppedge v. United States,

(1962). SO ORDERED. pave Ned 2025 (yp p Dae ( Ve DLAg. FD. Did pee United States District Judge