Pinto v. Bondi

Background

Julio Cesar Pomboza Pinto filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a procedure used to challenge a person’s custody. The government moved to dismiss the petition or, alternatively, to transfer it to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

Parties’ Positions

The government relied on the general rule that habeas jurisdiction belongs in the federal district where the petitioner is confined. The opinion states that Pomboza Pinto was located in El Paso, Texas.

Pomboza Pinto argued that exceptions to this district-of-confinement rule applied. The opinion explains that the cited exceptions involved petitions filed when the petitioner’s location was unknown at the time of filing. Here, the petition indicated that counsel knew Pomboza Pinto had been transferred to Texas when the petition was filed. The court stated that the circumstances of the relocation did not provide a basis for the District of Minnesota to exercise jurisdiction.

Ruling

The court held that transferring the case to the Western District of Texas was the appropriate action for prompt resolution. It granted the government’s motion to transfer, denied the petitioner’s motion for an order to show cause, and directed the Clerk to transfer the case to the Western District of Texas. The order does not state a separate disposition of the government’s alternative motion to dismiss.