Rose v. Capernol

Background

Jason Rose, who was incarcerated at USP Victorville in Adelanto, California, brought this self-represented action under the federal mandamus statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1361. He named “District Judge Capernol,” whom he did not otherwise identify, and “(ICE) Immigration Service” as respondents.

Rose argued that his mother’s naturalization papers showed that he was a United States citizen. He asked the court to require immigration authorities to notify the Federal Bureau of Prisons and USP Victorville of his citizenship, prevent his deportation to Jamaica after his federal sentence ended, and remove or prevent immigration holds. He also asked the court to contact his mother to confirm his citizenship.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that mandamus relief may be available only when no other adequate means exist to obtain the requested relief, the petitioner’s right to relief is clear and indisputable, and issuing the order is appropriate under the circumstances. The court stated that Rose likely could not obtain mandamus relief because he did not have a right to require immigration authorities to notify prison officials that he was a United States citizen.

The court separately held that, to the extent Rose was challenging his physical custody or immigration holds, the Southern District of New York was not the proper venue. It relied on the general rule that a challenge to physical confinement belongs in the district where the person is confined. Because Rose was confined at USP Victorville in California, the court transferred the action under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).

Disposition

The court directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California and stated that the order closed the case in the Southern District of New York. It left to the receiving court the decision whether Rose could proceed without paying filing fees. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.

The opinion’s introductory discussion says the action was transferred to the Central District of New York, but the later analysis, conclusion, and specific transfer directive all identify the Central District of California as the destination.