A.A. v. Kristi Noem, et al.

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 21, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-00397
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 A.A., No. 1:26-cv-00302-DAD-JDP 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S MOTION TO TRANSFER TO THE 14 KRISTI NOEM, et al., SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND VACATING THE COURT’S JANUARY 15 Respondents. 19, 2026 ORDER 16 (Doc. Nos. 11, 13) 17 18 19 On January 15, 2026, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, a motion for 20 temporary restraining order, and a motion to proceed under a pseudonym. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2, 3.) In 21 that habeas petition, petitioner alleged that venue was proper in this court because petitioner was 22 detained in an immigration detention facility in California City, California, which is within the 23 jurisdiction of the Eastern District of California. (Doc. No. 1 at 4.) On January 19, 2026, the 24 court issued an order granting in part petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining and motion 25 to proceed by pseudonym. (Doc. No. 11.) That same day, respondent filed a response to the 26 court’s order, alerting the court that petitioner has, in fact, been detained in Otay Mesa, California 27 within the Southern District of California, since his re-detention on December 24, 2025. (Doc. 28 No. 12 at 1.) Respondents request that the petition be either dismissed or transferred to the 1 Southern District of California, where petitioner is detained. (Id. at 2.) On January 20, 2026, 2 petitioner filed a motion to transfer this action to the Southern District of California pursuant to 3 28 U.S.C. § 1406. (Doc. No. 13.) Therein, petitioner confirms that he is detained in Otay Mesa, 4 California and does not dispute that he was detained there at the time his petition was filed. (Doc. 5 No. 13 at 1.) 6 Habeas jurisdiction lies only in the district of confinement. Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 7 1188, 1198 (9th Cir. 2024) (holding the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction over an 8 immigration habeas petition was improper because the petitioner was confined in a different 9 district). Habeas jurisdiction is established at the time of filing. Johnson v. Gill, 883 F.3d 756, 10 761 (9th Cir. 2018) (holding that the petitioner’s transfer to another facility did not destroy the 11 jurisdiction established at the time of filing). “[A] circuit court may ‘transfer the application [for 12 a writ of habeas corpus] for hearing and determination to the district court having jurisdiction to 13 entertain it.’” Lopez-Marroquin v. Barr, 955 F.3d 759, 760 (9th Cir. 2020) (transferring a habeas 14 challenge to the petitioner’s immigration detention to the Southern District of California) (quoting 15 28 U.S.C. § 2241(b)). 16 Here, petitioner was detained in Otay Mesa, California, located in the Southern District of 17 California, at the time he filed his habeas petition in this action, and he remains detained at that 18 location. (Doc. No. 12 at 1.) Jurisdiction is therefore proper in the Southern District of California 19 and the court will therefore transfer these proceedings. 20 Accordingly, for the reasons explained above, 21 1. Petitioner’s motion to transfer to the Southern District of California (Doc. No. 13) is 22 GRANTED; 23 2. The court’s prior order granting in part petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining 24 order and motion to proceed under a pseudonym (Doc. No. 11) is VACATED; and 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// ] 3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to transfer this case to the Southern District of 2 California. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. ‘ Dated: _ January 21, 2026 Dal A. 2, 5 DALE A. DROZD ‘ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28