Edwin Bernardo Nauta Ordonez v. U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, et al.
- JENNFER Rearden
- 1:25-cv-07915
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Nauta Ordonez v. U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, Judge JENNFER Rearden ruled the transferred court could not act on a request.
Petitioner Edwin Bernardo Nauta Ordonez and Emma Contreras, who filed the request on his behalf, were directed to present the request to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey rather than this court.
What happened
Edwin Bernardo Nauta Ordonez v. U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, et al. involved a case that this court had transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. After the transfer, Emma Contreras, identified as Nauta Ordonez’s next friend and husband, asked this court to bring him back to New York.
The court ruled that transferring the case ended its authority to act on it. It directed that Contreras’s request, and any future requests, be made to the New Jersey court. The clerk was ordered to send the request there and to mail and email copies of the order.
Judge JENNFER Rearden issued the order on October 1, 2025. The order did not decide the underlying request for Nauta Ordonez’s return or release.
The detailed version
- Edwin Bernardo Nauta Ordonez v. U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, et al. · No. 1:25-cv-07915
- JENNFER Rearden
- Oct. 1, 2025
Background
On September 26, 2025, the court transferred this pro se action under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The New Jersey court acknowledged receiving the action that same day. The court noted that it had waived the usual seven-day waiting period because the petition sought the immediate release of an individual in custody.
On September 29, 2025, Emma Contreras, identified as Petitioner’s next friend, filed a letter asking this court to bring Petitioner, her husband, back to New York. She also submitted supporting letters.
Ruling
The court explained that transferring a case removes the transferring court’s authority to act on that case. Because the New Jersey court had received the action on September 26, this court no longer had jurisdiction to act on Contreras’s application.
The court directed that Contreras’s September 29 application, as well as any further applications, be made to the New Jersey court. The clerk was ordered to transmit the filing to that court and to mail a copy of the order to Petitioner and email a copy to the address listed in Contreras’s submission. The order did not address the merits of the request to bring Petitioner back to New York or the underlying request for release.
Judge
JENNFER H. REARDEN, United States District Judge, issued the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.