Marcia R.Q. v. Bondi
- Katherine Menendez
- 0:26-cv-00881
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 6
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Marcia R.Q. v. Pamela Bondi, Judge Menendez transferred Marcia R.Q.’s detention challenge to Texas because that is where she was confined.
Marcia R.Q.’s detention challenge will proceed, if at all, in the Western District of Texas rather than the District of Minnesota; the order did not decide her entitlement to release or a bond hearing.
What happened
In Marcia R.Q. v. Pamela Bondi, Marcia R.Q. asked the court to order her release from federal immigration detention or require a bond hearing. She was arrested in Minnesota and transferred to Texas before filing her petition.
The respondents argued that the Minnesota court lacked authority to hear the case or should transfer it to Texas. The court rejected the argument that the transfer eliminated its authority to hear the case, but concluded that the proper place for a challenge to physical detention is generally the district where the person is held.
Judge Menendez transferred the matter to the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division. The order did not decide whether Marcia R.Q. should be released or receive a bond hearing.
The detailed version
- Marcia R.Q. v. Bondi · No. 0:26-cv-00881
- Katherine Menendez
- Feb. 4, 2026
Background
Marcia R.Q. filed a petition asking the court to order her immediate release from federal immigration detention or, alternatively, require immigration officials to provide a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The opinion states that she is a citizen of Ecuador, has lived in the United States since November 2022, has a pending asylum application, and does not have a final removal order.
According to the petition, agents arrested Marcia R.Q. on January 11, 2026, while she was bringing food to a local church. The agents allegedly did not have an arrest warrant. She was transferred to Texas on January 12, 2026, and was being held in El Paso, Texas when the respondents filed their response. The petition was filed on January 30, 2026.
The respondents moved to dismiss or transfer the case. They argued that the Minnesota court could not hear the petition because Marcia R.Q. was not detained in Minnesota when she filed it. They also asked the court to deny the petition on its merits.
Court’s analysis
The court declined to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It explained that the rule requiring a physical-detention challenge to be brought against the detainee’s immediate custodian in the district of confinement is not a limit on the federal court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. Instead, the rule concerns the proper forum for the case.
The court held that the proper forum was the Western District of Texas because Marcia R.Q. was confined there when she filed the petition and remained there. The court also rejected an exception for situations in which a detainee’s location is unknown or counsel cannot determine where the person is held. The petition showed that counsel knew Marcia R.Q. was in Texas when the petition was filed.
The court further concluded that ordinary federal civil-action venue rules under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b) and (e) do not apply to this detention petition. The court therefore found that transfer to the district of confinement was appropriate rather than dismissal.
Disposition
The court ordered that the matter be transferred to the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division, and directed the clerk to complete the transfer without delay. The court did not decide the requests for release or a bond hearing and did not rule on the respondents’ argument that the petition should be denied on its merits.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.