Minaya-Rodriguez v. Warden
- Laura Swain
- 1:23-cv-08632
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Minaya-Rodriguez v. Warden, Judge Swain transferred a prisoner’s First Step Act challenge to Pennsylvania because venue belonged where he was confined.
Gilberto Minaya-Rodriguez and the transferred action; the Middle District of Pennsylvania will decide whether the petition may proceed without payment of fees.
What happened
In Minaya-Rodriguez v. Warden, Gilberto Minaya-Rodriguez, who was representing himself, filed a detention petition challenging how Allenwood applied benefits under the First Step Act to incarcerated people with final removal orders. He asked the court to require benefits regardless of immigration status and to suspend immigration video hearings in correctional institutions.
The court said a detention petition generally must be filed in the federal district where the prisoner is held and directed to the official responsible for that custody. Because Minaya-Rodriguez was confined at Allenwood in Pennsylvania and alleged that a removal order could affect his custody, the court found that the Middle District of Pennsylvania was the proper venue.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain transferred the action to the Middle District of Pennsylvania in the interest of justice and closed the Southern District of New York case. The court did not decide whether Allenwood’s First Step Act practices were lawful; the transferee court will decide whether Minaya-Rodriguez may proceed without paying fees.
The detailed version
- Minaya-Rodriguez v. Warden · No. 1:23-cv-08632
- Laura Swain
- Oct. 10, 2023
Background
Gilberto Minaya-Rodriguez, who is incarcerated at Allenwood Low Security Correctional Institution in Pennsylvania, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A petition under that statute asks a federal court to review the legality or effect of a person’s federal custody. He challenged Allenwood’s implementation of the First Step Act, asserting that the institution revokes benefits earned under that law after an incarcerated person receives a final order of removal. He sought an order requiring Bureau of Prisons facilities to grant qualifying programming benefits regardless of immigration status and an order suspending immigration video hearings in correctional institutions. He filed the petition without a lawyer.
Court’s reasoning
The court explained that a § 2241 petition must be directed to the person who has custody of the incarcerated individual, and that a district court generally may grant relief only within its geographic jurisdiction. Under that rule, the proper respondent is ordinarily the warden of the facility where the person is held, and the proper venue is the district of confinement.
The court concluded that the Middle District of Pennsylvania was the proper venue because Minaya-Rodriguez was confined at Allenwood there. Although he did not expressly challenge his physical custody, the court found that his allegations suggested that his custody could be affected by the issuance of a final removal order. The court therefore transferred the petition under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits transfer to another federal district in the interest of justice.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania and stated that the transferor case was closed. It left to the transferee court the question whether Minaya-Rodriguez could proceed without paying fees. The court did not rule on the legality of Allenwood’s First Step Act practices or grant or deny the requested underlying relief. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.