Chukwu v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

N.D. California

Chukwu v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

DecidedDecember 4, 2024

Docket5:24-cv-08633

StatusUnknown

This text of Chukwu v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Chukwu v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chukwu v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SIR CHUKWU, Case No. 24-cv-08633-SVK

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 9

10 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 Petitioner, a detainee of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Imperial 13 Regional Detention Center in Calexico, California, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus 14 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the constitutionality of his continued detention. (ECF No. 1.) 15 In Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973), the Supreme Court made 16 clear “venue considerations may, and frequently will, argue in favor of adjudication of the habeas 17 claim in the jurisdiction where the habeas petitioner is confined.” Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 18 864 F.2d 804, 814 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Federal courts generally take the position that the district of 19 confinement “is normally the forum most convenient to the parties” to litigate habeas petitions 20 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and therefore exercise discretion in transferring petitions to the district of 21 confinement “in the interests of justice” pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). McCoy v. United States 22 Bd. of Parole, 537 F.2d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 1976); see also Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249- 23 50 (9th Cir. 1989) (suggesting that even where district court has personal jurisdiction over 24 custodian, preferred forum is district where petitioner is confined). 25 As Petitioner challenges his detention by ICE in a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 26 the most convenient forum for his petition is the district in which he is confined. Calexico, 27 California, is in Imperial County, which is within the venue of the Southern District of California. 1 28 U.S.C. § 84(d). 2 Accordingly, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), this case is 3 TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 4 The Clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: December 4, 2024 7 g Sus veut Susan van Keulen 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 14

O Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SIR CHUKWU, Case No. 24-cv-08633-SVK

8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF TRANSFER v. 9

10 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 Petitioner, a detainee of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Imperial 13 Regional Detention Center in Calexico, California, filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus 14 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the constitutionality of his continued detention. (ECF No. 1.) 15 In Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484 (1973), the Supreme Court made 16 clear “venue considerations may, and frequently will, argue in favor of adjudication of the habeas 17 claim in the jurisdiction where the habeas petitioner is confined.” Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 18 864 F.2d 804, 814 (D.C. Cir. 1988). Federal courts generally take the position that the district of 19 confinement “is normally the forum most convenient to the parties” to litigate habeas petitions 20 under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and therefore exercise discretion in transferring petitions to the district of 21 confinement “in the interests of justice” pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). McCoy v. United States 22 Bd. of Parole, 537 F.2d 962, 966 (8th Cir. 1976); see also Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249- 23 50 (9th Cir. 1989) (suggesting that even where district court has personal jurisdiction over 24 custodian, preferred forum is district where petitioner is confined). 25 As Petitioner challenges his detention by ICE in a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 26 the most convenient forum for his petition is the district in which he is confined. Calexico, 27 California, is in Imperial County, which is within the venue of the Southern District of California. 1 28 U.S.C. § 84(d). 2 Accordingly, in the interest of justice and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), this case is 3 TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. 4 The Clerk shall transfer this matter forthwith. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: December 4, 2024 7 g Sus veut Susan van Keulen 9 United States Magistrate Judge 10 11 12 14

O Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Chukwu v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chukwu-v-immigration-and-customs-enforcement-cand-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack