Cabrera Espinoza v. Becerra

Background

Adrian Cabrera Espinoza challenged his nearly 22 months of confinement by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Golden State Annex in the Eastern District of California. He was detained during ongoing removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), which requires detention during removal proceedings for people with certain prior criminal convictions. He brought the matter as a petition for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and as an action for declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Cabrera Espinoza initially asserted procedural and substantive due process claims under the Fifth Amendment. On December 20, 2023, the court granted his motion for a preliminary injunction and ordered an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge. The immigration judge later found that Cabrera Espinoza posed a flight risk that bond conditions could not mitigate, and therefore continued his detention.

Jurisdiction and transfer

The Ninth Circuit later held that the Northern District of California lacks jurisdiction under § 2241 over habeas petitions brought by similarly situated immigrant detainees confined outside that district. Under that decision, a detainee held at the Golden State Annex may file a habeas petition only in the Eastern District of California, the district of confinement.

Cabrera Espinoza argued that the Northern District still had jurisdiction under § 1331 because he sought declaratory and injunctive relief in addition to habeas relief. The court was skeptical that § 1331 provided jurisdiction over his challenge to the fact of his confinement. It distinguished a Ninth Circuit decision recognizing § 1331 jurisdiction over Fifth Amendment challenges to conditions of confinement, explaining that Cabrera Espinoza challenged the fact of his detention rather than its conditions.

The court did not conclusively decide the § 1331 jurisdiction issue because the Eastern District of California indisputably had jurisdiction over the habeas petition. Relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which permits transfer to a district where an action could have been brought when transfer serves the interests of justice, the court determined that transfer would avoid uncertainty about which court could decide the case.

Respondent issue and disposition

The government opposed transfer and argued that dismissal was required because Cabrera Espinoza had not named the Facility Administrator of the Golden State Annex, his immediate custodian, as a respondent. The court rejected dismissal on that ground. It explained that Ninth Circuit authority allows a habeas petitioner transferred to a court with jurisdiction an opportunity to amend the petition to name the proper respondent.

The court concluded that transfer rather than dismissal served the interests of justice, particularly because the case had been brought in good faith and dismissal could cause delay. The court ordered the case transferred to the Eastern District of California. It stated that all pending motions and requests could be addressed by that court after transfer.