Riego v. Current or Acting Field Office Director
Riego v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Donna Ryu
- 4:24-cv-01860
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Riego v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, Judge Ryu transferred Riego’s detention petition to the Eastern District of California.
Venancio Esteban Riego, the respondents named in his detention petition, and the Eastern District of California, to which the case was transferred.
What happened
In Riego v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, Venancio Esteban Riego, who was detained at Golden State Annex, challenged his prolonged detention without a hearing. He filed the petition in the Northern District of California without a lawyer.
The court held that a detention petition under federal law must name the detainee’s immediate custodian and be filed in the district where the detainee is held. Because Riego named other respondents and filed outside the district where Golden State Annex is located, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction.
Judge Ryu ordered the case transferred, rather than dismissed, to the Eastern District of California. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire case file.
The detailed version
- Riego v. Current or Acting Field Office Director · No. 4:24-cv-01860
- Donna Ryu
- Sept. 30, 2024
Background
Venancio Esteban Riego, described as a non-citizen detainee confined at Golden State Annex in McFarland, 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 Field Office Director of the San Francisco Field Office of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Jurisdiction and Transfer
The court relied on the Ninth Circuit’s decision in a prior case holding that the proper respondent for a § 2241 petition is the warden or other immediate custodian at the facility where the prisoner is held. The court also applied the rule that jurisdiction over this type of petition lies only in the district of confinement. Riego did not name his immediate custodian and filed the petition outside the district where he was confined. The court therefore concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and that the Eastern District of California was the only district with jurisdiction over the petition.
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 best serve those interests because dismissal would delay the matter and burden Riego.
Disposition
The court ordered the immediate transfer of the case to the Eastern District of California, in lieu of dismissal. The clerk was directed to terminate all pending motions and transfer the entire file. The order did not decide whether Riego’s detention was unconstitutional.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.