Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 16, 2024

Le v. Field Office Director

Full caption

Le v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Judge
Susan Van Keulen
Docket
5:24-cv-06162
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
1
ImmigrationHabeasCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Le v. Field Office Director, Judge van Keulen transferred the detention challenge to the Eastern District of California.

Who this affects

Huy Hoang Le and the defendants; the action was transferred from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California.

What happened

In Le v. Field Office Director, Huy Hoang Le challenged the lawfulness of his continued detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement while awaiting removal to Vietnam.

The court said detention challenges must be filed in the district where the person is confined. Because Le was detained at the Mesa Verde Processing Center in Bakersfield, California, the court transferred the action to the Eastern District of California.

Judge Susan van Keulen ordered the Clerk to transfer the action immediately. The court did not decide whether Le’s detention was lawful.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Le v. Field Office Director · No. 5:24-cv-06162
Judge
Susan Van Keulen
Date
Oct. 16, 2024

Background

Huy Hoang Le brought a federal habeas action challenging the lawfulness of his continued detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement while he awaited removal to Vietnam. The opinion states that ICE detained him at the Mesa Verde Processing Center in Bakersfield, California.

Jurisdiction and transfer

The court stated that jurisdiction over a habeas petition by an ICE detainee challenging the lawfulness of current detention lies only in the federal district where the detainee is confined. Because Le was confined in Bakersfield, the court determined that the action belonged in the Eastern District of California rather than the Northern District of California.

Ruling

The court TRANSFERRED the action to the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. §§ 84(b), 1404(a), and 2241(d), and directed the Clerk to transfer it forthwith. Judge Susan van Keulen did not decide the merits of Le’s challenge to his detention.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.