Edwin Bernardo Nauta Ordonez v. U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, et al.

S.D. New York

Edwin Bernardo Nauta Ordonez v. U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, et al.

DecidedOctober 1, 2025

Docket1:25-cv-07915

StatusUnknown

This text of Edwin Bernardo Nauta Ordonez v. U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, et al. (Edwin Bernardo Nauta Ordonez v. U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Edwin Bernardo Nauta Ordonez v. U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, et al., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EDWIN BERNARDO NAUTA ORDONEZ, Petitioner, Case No. 25 Civ. 7915 (JHR) -against- ORDER U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOM ENFORCEMENT, et al., Respondents. JENNFER H. REARDEN, United States District Judge: By Order dated September 26, 2025, the Court transferred this pro se action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. ECF No. 4. The District of New Jersey acknowledged receipt of the action the same day.1 See Nauta Ordonez v. U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement et al., No. 2:25-cv-16017 (D.N.J. September 26, 2025). On September 29, 2025, three days after the Clerk of this Court entered the transfer order, Petitioner’s next friend, Emma Contreras, filed a letter with this Court asking to bring Petitioner, her husband, back to New York. ECF No. 5. Ms. Contreras also submitted letters in support of Petitioner’s application. Id. The transfer of a case divests the transferor court of jurisdiction over the action. Drabik v. Murphy, 246 F.2d 408, 409 (2d Cir. 1957) (holding that district court did not have jurisdiction to rule on motion following transfer of case). Here, the transferee court received this action on September 26, 2025, the transfer of which divested this Court of jurisdiction to act.

1 The Court waived the seven-day waiting period under Local Civil Rule 83.1 because the petition seeks immediate release of an individual in custody. ECF No. 4 at 2. Ms. Contreras’s September 29 application and any further applications must be made to the transferee court in the District of New Jersey. The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the filing at ECF No. 5 to the District of New Jersey. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner and also to email a copy of this Order to the email address identified in Ms. Contreras’s submission at ECF No. 5. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 1, 2025 New York, New York

NNIFER H. REARDEN nited States District Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EDWIN BERNARDO NAUTA ORDONEZ, Petitioner, Case No. 25 Civ. 7915 (JHR) -against- ORDER U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOM ENFORCEMENT, et al., Respondents. JENNFER H. REARDEN, United States District Judge: By Order dated September 26, 2025, the Court transferred this pro se action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. ECF No. 4. The District of New Jersey acknowledged receipt of the action the same day.1 See Nauta Ordonez v. U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement et al., No. 2:25-cv-16017 (D.N.J. September 26, 2025). On September 29, 2025, three days after the Clerk of this Court entered the transfer order, Petitioner’s next friend, Emma Contreras, filed a letter with this Court asking to bring Petitioner, her husband, back to New York. ECF No. 5. Ms. Contreras also submitted letters in support of Petitioner’s application. Id. The transfer of a case divests the transferor court of jurisdiction over the action. Drabik v. Murphy, 246 F.2d 408, 409 (2d Cir. 1957) (holding that district court did not have jurisdiction to rule on motion following transfer of case). Here, the transferee court received this action on September 26, 2025, the transfer of which divested this Court of jurisdiction to act.

1 The Court waived the seven-day waiting period under Local Civil Rule 83.1 because the petition seeks immediate release of an individual in custody. ECF No. 4 at 2. Ms. Contreras’s September 29 application and any further applications must be made to the transferee court in the District of New Jersey. The Clerk of Court is directed to transmit the filing at ECF No. 5 to the District of New Jersey. The Clerk of Court is further directed to mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner and also to email a copy of this Order to the email address identified in Ms. Contreras’s submission at ECF No. 5. SO ORDERED. Dated: October 1, 2025 New York, New York

NNIFER H. REARDEN nited States District Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Edwin Bernardo Nauta Ordonez v. U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edwin-bernardo-nauta-ordonez-v-us-immigration-and-custom-enforcement-et-nysd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack