Khamo v. Department of Homeland Security Secretary
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:25-cv-06500
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Khamo v. Department of Homeland Security Secretary, Judge Van Keulen transferred an immigration-detention habeas petition to the Central District of California.
The order affects Fabian Yousif Israel Khamo and the Department of Homeland Security Secretary and other defendants by moving the case from the Northern District of California to the Central District of California. It did not decide whether the ICE detainer was valid.
What happened
Fabian Yousif Israel Khamo, a California prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition challenging an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer. He did not challenge his state conviction or sentence.
The court treated the petition as one challenging federal custody under a law known as Section 2241. It explained that such cases are generally handled in the district where the petitioner is confined because that is usually the most convenient place for the parties and records.
Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California because Khamo was confined at Atascadero State Hospital in San Luis Obispo County. The clerk was ordered to transfer the matter immediately.
The detailed version
- Khamo v. Department of Homeland Security Secretary · No. 5:25-cv-06500
- Susan Van Keulen
- Aug. 4, 2025
Background
Fabian Yousif Israel Khamo, a California prisoner at Atascadero State Hospital proceeding without an attorney, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The petition challenged a detainer issued by the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, rather than Khamo’s state-court conviction or sentence.
Legal framework
The court determined that the petition fell under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which provides a procedure for challenging certain forms of federal custody. The court explained that venue—the proper federal district for handling a case—is often most appropriate where a § 2241 petitioner is confined. That district is generally considered more convenient because the petitioner’s records are there and the transfer would promote consistency in handling these petitions.
Khamo was confined in Atascadero, California, in San Luis Obispo County. The court stated that the county is within the Central District of California. It also noted that the petition had been filed only recently, so transferring it would not cause undue delay.
Ruling
Judge Susan Van Keulen ordered that, in the interest of justice and for the parties’ convenience, the case be transferred to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The clerk was directed to transfer the matter forthwith. The order addressed the proper forum and did not decide the validity of the immigration detainer.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.