Keo v. Field Office Director
Keo v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Nathanael Cousins
- 5:24-cv-04280
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Keo v. Field Office Director, Judge Cousins transferred Keo’s detention petition to the Eastern District of California because this district lacked jurisdiction.
Sokhean Keo’s detention petition was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California; the order did not decide whether his detention was unconstitutional.
What happened
In Keo v. Field Office Director, Sokhean Keo, a non-citizen detainee representing himself, challenged his prolonged detention without a hearing in a petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He was confined at Mesa Verde Detention Center in Bakersfield, California, but filed in the Northern District of California and did not name the facility’s warden or administrator as the respondent.
The court explained that a detention petition under § 2241 must be filed in the district where the person is confined and must name the immediate custodian. Because Keo was confined in the Eastern District of California and had not named the proper respondent, the Northern District of California lacked jurisdiction.
Judge Cousins ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of California instead of dismissed, finding that transfer would serve the interests of justice and avoid delaying the matter. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and transfer the case file.
The detailed version
- Keo v. Field Office Director · No. 5:24-cv-04280
- Nathanael Cousins
- Aug. 12, 2024
Background
Sokhean Keo, a non-citizen detainee confined at Mesa Verde Detention Center in Bakersfield, California, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his prolonged detention without a hearing as unconstitutional. He represented himself. The petition named several respondents, including the current or acting director of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in San Francisco.
Jurisdiction
The court relied on a recent Ninth Circuit decision explaining that the proper respondent in a § 2241 detention petition is the warden or other immediate custodian of the facility where the petitioner is held. The court also explained that jurisdiction over such a petition lies only in the district of confinement. Keo was not confined in the Northern District of California, did not name his immediate custodian, and filed outside the district of confinement. The court therefore concluded that it lacked jurisdiction.
Disposition
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a case filed in the wrong district may be dismissed or transferred when transfer serves the interests of justice. The court found that the Eastern District of California was the only district with jurisdiction because Mesa Verde Detention Center was located there. It ordered the immediate transfer of the entire case to the Eastern District of California instead of dismissal, stating that dismissal would delay the matter and burden Keo. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and transfer the case file.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.