Junior Rodriguez Gonzales v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.
- Lee
- 5:25-cv-10838
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Junior Rodriguez Gonzales v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Judge Lee dismissed the habeas case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction because Rodriguez Gonzales was detained in another district.
The dismissal affects Junior Rodriguez Gonzales's habeas petition. The case was dismissed without prejudice, and the court did not decide the petition's underlying claims.
What happened
Junior Rodriguez Gonzales filed a petition asking for habeas relief while detained at the California City Detention Facility. The facility is in the Eastern District of California.
The court explained that a habeas petition must be filed in the federal district where the person is confined. Because Rodriguez Gonzales was detained in the Eastern District of California, the Northern District of California concluded that it lacked jurisdiction. The court chose dismissal rather than transfer because it believed dismissal would allow the petition to be refiled more quickly.
Judge Eumi K. Lee dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. The court did not decide whether the petition had merit, and stated that the dismissal would allow expedited refiling in the Eastern District of California.
The detailed version
- Junior Rodriguez Gonzales v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al. · No. 5:25-cv-10838
- Lee
- Dec. 19, 2025
Background
Junior Rodriguez Gonzales filed a habeas petition in the Northern District of California on December 19, 2025. The opinion states that he was detained at the California City Detention Facility when he filed the petition and remained detained there. That facility is located in the Eastern District of California.
Jurisdiction
The court applied the rule that jurisdiction over a habeas petition lies only in the federal district where the petitioner is confined. Because Rodriguez Gonzales was confined in the Eastern District of California, the Northern District of California concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the petition.
Ruling
The court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. It chose dismissal rather than transfer because, in its view, dismissal would facilitate faster refiling in the Eastern District of California and transfer could cause harmful delay. The court expressly stated that it was not deciding the merits of the petition.
Disposition
The case was dismissed without prejudice. The opinion does not resolve the underlying habeas claims.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.