Swaby v. Garland
- Sallie Kim
- 3:23-cv-03443
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Swaby v. Wofford, Judge Kim transferred Swaby’s detention challenge because the law required filing it where he was held.
The order affects Tajohn Hasini Jarred Swaby, whose detention petition will proceed in the Eastern District of California, and Minga Wofford, the responding facility administrator. It did not decide the legality of Swaby’s detention.
What happened
In Swaby v. Wofford, Tajohn Hasini Jarred Swaby, who was representing himself, challenged his prolonged immigration detention in a petition asking a federal court to order his release. He was detained at the Golden State Annex in McFarland, California.
The court ruled that a detention challenge must generally be filed in the federal district where the person is confined. Because Swaby was held in Kern County, the court found that the Eastern District of California—not the Northern District of California—was the proper place for the case.
Judge Sallie Kim granted the respondent’s motion to dismiss or transfer and transferred the petition to the Eastern District of California. The court did not decide whether Swaby’s detention was lawful, and the clerk was directed to terminate the motion as moot.
The detailed version
- Swaby v. Garland · No. 3:23-cv-03443
- Sallie Kim
- Sept. 25, 2023
Background
Tajohn Hasini Jarred Swaby, a citizen of Jamaica, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure for challenging allegedly unlawful detention. He challenged his prolonged detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Golden State Annex in McFarland, California. Swaby represented himself and also requested appointment of counsel and permission to proceed without paying filing fees.
In an earlier order, the court dismissed all respondents except Minga Wofford, the Golden State Annex facility administrator, and ordered Wofford to explain why the court should not grant relief. The court had granted Swaby permission to proceed without paying filing fees and denied his request for appointed counsel without prejudice.
Motion and Analysis
Wofford moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer it to the Eastern District of California. Wofford argued that jurisdiction for this type of detention challenge lies only in the federal district where the petitioner is confined.
The court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) and Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. It explained that, for a core detention challenge involving present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement. Swaby was detained in Kern County, which is within the Eastern District of California. The court therefore concluded that jurisdiction and venue for this petition lay only in that district.
Disposition
The court granted Wofford’s motion to dismiss, or in the alternative to transfer, and transferred the petition to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), in the interest of justice. The clerk was directed to transfer the case immediately and terminate the motion listed as ECF No. 12 as moot. The order did not reach the merits of Swaby’s challenge to his detention.
Judge Sallie Kim signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.