Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Dec. 11, 2024

Tobar v. Current or Acting Field Office Director

Full caption

Tobar v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Judge
Sallie Kim
Docket
3:24-cv-08550
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
HabeasImmigrationCivil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Tobar v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, Judge Kim transferred Tobar’s detention challenge to the Eastern District of California.

Who this affects

Walter Aparicio Tobar and the respondents in his immigration-detention case; the matter will proceed in the Eastern District of California.

What happened

Walter Aparicio Tobar, who was representing himself, filed a petition challenging his continued immigration detention at the Golden State Annex detention center in McFarland, California. The case was filed in the Northern District of California.

The court explained that a petition challenging a person’s physical detention generally must be filed in the federal district where that person is held. Because the detention center is in Kern County, which is in the Eastern District of California, the Northern District was not the proper district for this petition.

Judge Sallie Kim transferred the detention petition, the request to proceed without paying filing fees, and the request for appointed counsel to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The court did not decide the substance of Tobar’s detention challenge.

The detailed version

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

Case
Tobar v. Current or Acting Field Office Director · No. 3:24-cv-08550
Judge
Sallie Kim
Date
Dec. 11, 2024

Background

Walter Aparicio Tobar, identified in the opinion as a citizen of Guatemala, filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He challenged his prolonged detention by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Golden State Annex detention center in McFarland, California. He also moved for permission to proceed without paying filing fees and for appointment of counsel.

Venue and jurisdiction

The court relied on the federal habeas statute’s limitation that district courts may grant habeas relief only within their respective jurisdictions. It explained that a core habeas petition challenging present physical confinement generally must be filed in the single federal district where the petitioner is confined. The court stated that this rule applies to petitions challenging immigration detention.

Tobar was detained in McFarland, in Kern County. The court determined that Kern County is within the Eastern District of California. It therefore concluded that the petition belonged in that district rather than the Northern District of California.

Disposition

The court transferred the § 2241 petition, the motion for permission to proceed without paying filing fees, and the motion for appointment of counsel to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The clerk was directed to transfer the case immediately. The order did not decide whether Tobar’s detention was lawful.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-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.