Buzaishvili v. Albence
- Loretta Preska
- 1:20-cv-04602
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Buzaishvili v. Albence, Judge Preska denied dismissal and granted transfer of the custody petition to Pennsylvania.
The ruling affected Zurab Buzaishvili’s petition challenging his immigration detainer and the respondents’ request to dismiss or transfer the case. The petition was transferred from the Southern District of New York to the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
What happened
In Buzaishvili v. Albence, Zurab Buzaishvili asked the court to lift an immigration detainer or decide his immigration status. He argued that the detainer kept him in physical custody and exposed him to health risks from COVID-19.
The government asked the Southern District of New York either to dismiss the petition or transfer it because Buzaishvili was confined in Pennsylvania when he filed it. He was later held in immigration custody at a Pennsylvania facility.
Judge Loretta A. Preska denied the motion to dismiss but granted the motion to transfer the petition to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which she identified as the proper court for the custody challenge.
The detailed version
- Buzaishvili v. Albence · No. 1:20-cv-04602
- Loretta Preska
- Feb. 2, 2021
Background
Zurab Buzaishvili filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer. He asked the court to lift, dismiss, or block the detainer or, alternatively, issue a final decision on his immigration status. He alleged that the detainer prevented his early release from Bureau of Prisons custody and exposed him to COVID-19 risks. He was later held in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody at the Clinton County Correctional Facility in Pennsylvania.
The respondents—Matthew T. Albence, Chad F. Wolf, and William P. Barr—moved to dismiss for improper venue or, alternatively, to transfer the petition to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. They argued that the petition challenged Buzaishvili’s present physical confinement and therefore belonged in the district where he was confined.
Court’s Analysis
The court applied the Supreme Court’s rule for a “core” custody challenge: a petition challenging present physical confinement generally must name the petitioner’s immediate physical custodian and be filed in the district of confinement. The court concluded that Buzaishvili’s request to lift the detainer challenged his physical custody when he filed the petition, making it a core challenge.
The court rejected Buzaishvili’s argument that his petition concerned only a detainer or future confinement. It reasoned that the detainer’s effect on his present custody made the challenge one to physical confinement. At the time of filing, he was confined in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, so the Southern District of New York was the improper forum.
Disposition
Judge Loretta A. Preska denied the respondents’ motion to dismiss. She granted their motion to transfer the petition to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, rather than dismissing it, because the interests of justice and efficiency favored transfer and the case involved liberty and health concerns. The clerk was directed to terminate the open motions and transfer the case.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.