Ayala v. Current or Acting Field Office Director
Ceja Ayala v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:25-cv-00047
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Ceja Ayala v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, Magistrate Judge Beeler transferred a detention challenge to the Eastern District of California.
The order affects Eduardo Ceja Ayala’s detention challenge by moving the case from the Northern District of California to the Eastern District of California.
What happened
Eduardo Ceja Ayala filed a petition asking a court to review his detention by immigration officials in Kern County. He was confined at the Golden State Annex in McFarland, California.
The court said Kern County is in the Eastern District of California and that the proper location for this detention challenge is generally the district where the person is confined. It did not decide whether the detention was lawful.
Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler transferred the case to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California under the federal venue statute and the court’s habeas rule.
The detailed version
- Ayala v. Current or Acting Field Office Director · No. 3:25-cv-00047
- Laurel Beeler
- Apr. 18, 2025
Background
Eduardo Ceja Ayala filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, meaning a request for judicial review of his detention by immigration officials. The opinion says he was detained in Kern County and confined at the Golden State Annex in McFarland, California.
Venue and Transfer
The court explained that Kern County is within the Eastern District of California. It said that venue in a detention challenge may be proper in either the district of confinement or the district of conviction, but that the proper respondent for a petition challenging an immigrant’s detention pending a removal order is the warden of the facility where the person is held. The court therefore identified the district of confinement—the Eastern District of California—as the preferred venue.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and Habeas Local Rule 2254-3(b), and in the interests of justice, the court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. The clerk was directed to transfer the matter. The order did not decide the legality of Ceja Ayala’s detention or any other underlying issue.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.