Ordonez v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Edwin Bernardo Nauta Ordonez v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; U.S. Department of Homeland Security
- Rearden
- 1:25-cv-07915
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Edwin Bernardo Nauta Ordonez v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Judge Rearden transferred the habeas petition to New Jersey because Petitioner was detained there.
The transfer affects Edwin Bernardo Nauta Ordonez’s detention challenge and moves it from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey; the order also directs the case to be closed in the Southern District of New York.
What happened
Edwin Bernardo Nauta Ordonez sought immediate release through a petition for a court order challenging his detention. Emma Contreras filed the petition as his “next friend,” and the opinion states that Nauta Ordonez was detained at the Delaney Hall Detention Facility in Newark, New Jersey.
The Southern District of New York explained that a detention challenge generally belongs in the federal district where the person is confined because that court has authority over the person responsible for the custody. Because the facility was in the District of New Jersey, the court transferred the petition there and closed the case in the Southern District of New York.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden issued the order on September 26, 2025. The order did not decide whether Nauta Ordonez’s detention was lawful or whether he should be released.
The detailed version
- Ordonez v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement · No. 1:25-cv-07915
- Rearden
- Sept. 26, 2025
Background
Emma Contreras brought a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as “next friend” for Petitioner Edwin Bernardo Nauta Ordonez. A habeas petition is a request for a court order concerning allegedly unlawful custody. The opinion states that Nauta Ordonez was detained at the Delaney Hall Detention Facility in Newark, New Jersey, and that he had paid the filing fee.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that a § 2241 petition challenging a person’s physical confinement generally must be heard in the federal district where that person is confined. This is because the court must have jurisdiction over the person or entity responsible for the custody. The Delaney Hall facility was in the District of New Jersey.
Disposition
The court transferred the petition to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. It waived the seven-day waiting period under the Southern District of New York’s Local Civil Rule 83.1 because the petition sought the immediate release of a detained person. The clerk was ordered to transfer the action upon filing the order, and the case was closed in the Southern District of New York. The order did not reach the merits of the detention or decide whether Nauta Ordonez should be released. Judge Jennifer H. Rearden issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.