Singh v. Field Office Director

Background

Gurmeet Singh, a federal detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his prolonged detention by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Mesa Verde Processing Center in Bakersfield, California. The respondents moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Singh opposed the motion.

Jurisdiction

The court relied on the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Doe v. Garland, which held that the proper respondent in a § 2241 detention petition is the detainee’s immediate custodian, such as the warden of the facility where the detainee is held. The decision also held that jurisdiction for such a petition lies only in the district of confinement. The court applied that rule even though Doe was decided after Singh filed his case.

Singh was confined in Bakersfield, which is in the Eastern District of California. Because he did not name his immediate custodian and filed outside the district of confinement, the Northern District of California concluded that it lacked jurisdiction. The court stated that the Eastern District was the only district with jurisdiction over the petition.

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 transfer would avoid delay and unnecessary burden. The clerk was ordered to vacate all pending motions, including the motion to dismiss and Singh’s opposition, and transfer the case to the Eastern District of California. The court did not decide the merits of Singh’s detention challenge.