Lopez v. Mayorkas
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:23-cv-06462
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Lopez v. Mayorkas, Judge DeMarchi dismissed Hector Lopez’s immigration-detention petition for lack of jurisdiction because he was confined in another district.
Hector Lopez’s petition was dismissed because the Northern District of California lacked jurisdiction; the respondents’ motion to dismiss was terminated as moot, and the case was closed.
What happened
Hector Lopez filed a self-represented petition challenging his prolonged civil immigration detention at Golden State Annex under a federal law allowing courts to review detention. He argued that the Northern District of California was the proper court, and the court initially found that his petition stated a possible due-process claim.
The respondents moved to dismiss, arguing that the case was moot because Lopez had been released from detention and removed from the United States. The court instead dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, explaining that such a petition must be filed in the district where the person was confined when the case began. Golden State Annex was in the Eastern District of California, not the Northern District.
Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi concluded that transferring the case would not serve the interests of justice because Lopez had been removed. She dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction, terminated the motion to dismiss as moot, and directed the clerk to close the file.
The detailed version
- Lopez v. Mayorkas · No. 5:23-cv-06462
- Virginia Demarchi
- Aug. 16, 2024
Background
Hector Lopez filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal law that allows a person to challenge unlawful detention. He alleged that his prolonged civil immigration detention at Golden State Annex violated his constitutional rights. He named several respondents, including the Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office director in San Francisco, and alleged that he was detained in the Northern District of California.
The court previously determined that the petition stated a legally sufficient due-process claim and ordered a respondent to answer. The respondent then moved to dismiss, arguing that the case was moot because Lopez had been released from detention and removed from the United States. Lopez did not respond to the motion.
Jurisdiction
The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent holding that the proper respondent in a § 2241 petition is the warden of the facility where the petitioner is held and that jurisdiction exists only in the district of confinement. Lopez had named Warden M. Wofford, his immediate custodian, but the court found that the petition was filed in the wrong district. At the time of filing, Lopez was confined at Golden State Annex in McFarland, California, which is in the Eastern District of California rather than the Northern District of California.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a case filed in the wrong district may be dismissed or transferred if transfer would serve the interests of justice. The court found that the Eastern District of California was the only district with jurisdiction over the petition, but concluded that transfer would not serve the interests of justice because the respondent’s unopposed motion indicated that Lopez had been removed from the United States.
Disposition
The court dismissed the petition for lack of jurisdiction. It terminated the respondent’s motion to dismiss as moot, terminated the docket entry, and directed the clerk to close the file. The order did not decide whether Lopez’s detention violated due process. Judge Virginia K. DeMarchi signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.