Sankara v. Barr
- Susan Illston
- 3:19-cv-06306
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Sankara v. Barr, Judge Illston denied reconsideration because California was improper venue and related petitions had been filed elsewhere.
Ahmadou Sankara’s closed federal custody challenge; the denial left the prior dismissal in place.
What happened
In Sankara v. Barr, Ahmadou Sankara asked the court to reopen his challenge to immigration custody while he awaited removal. The court had dismissed the case after he failed to keep it informed of his address, and he later was removed to the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire.
Judge Illston explained that a custody challenge generally belongs in the federal district where the person was detained. Sankara was detained in Genesee County, New York, so the Northern District of California was not the proper district. The court also noted that Sankara had already filed related custody and removal challenges in the Western District of New York.
Judge Illston denied the motion for reconsideration and left the case closed. The court said it would not reopen the case merely to dismiss it for improper venue or transfer it to New York, and it would not consider additional motions or requests in the case.
The detailed version
- Sankara v. Barr · No. 3:19-cv-06306
- Susan Illston
- Feb. 10, 2020
Background
Ahmadou Sankara filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal procedure for challenging the legality of custody, concerning his detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement while he awaited removal from the United States. When he filed the case, he was detained at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility in Batavia, New York. The court later dismissed the action because he failed to keep the court informed of his current address. Sankara moved for reconsideration, apparently asking to proceed now that he could provide an address. The opinion states that he had since been removed and was living in the Republic of Cote d’Ivoire.
Venue
The court explained that the proper venue for a § 2241 custody petition is generally the federal district where the petitioner is confined. Sankara was detained in Genesee County, which is in the Western District of New York, when he filed his petition. The court therefore concluded that the Western District of New York was the proper venue and that the Northern District of California was not.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), a court may transfer a case filed in the wrong venue when the interest of justice supports transfer. The court declined to transfer this case because Sankara had already filed petitions challenging his detention and removal in the Western District of New York. The court also stated that reopening the action only to dismiss it for improper venue would unnecessarily consume judicial resources.
Ruling
The court denied Sankara’s motion for reconsideration. It did not reopen the action or transfer it to the Western District of New York. The court also stated that it would not entertain any more motions or requests in the closed case. Susan Illston signed the order as United States District Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.