(HC)Nunez-Guzman v. Department of Homeland Security

E.D. California

(HC)Nunez-Guzman v. Department of Homeland Security

DecidedMay 18, 2020

Docket2:20-cv-00835

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC)Nunez-Guzman v. Department of Homeland Security ((HC)Nunez-Guzman v. Department of Homeland Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(HC)Nunez-Guzman v. Department of Homeland Security, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BERNABE J. NUNEZ-GUZMAN, No. 2:20-cv-00835 TLN GGH P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY IMMIGRATION REVIEW, 15 16 Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner is a federal detainee in the custody of the United States Immigration and 19 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Petitioner has filed a “Declaration for Default Judgment By Court 20 (Unlawful Detainer Code Civil Proceeding §585(d)).” ECF No. 1. It appears petitioner challenges 21 the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration Detainer against him. Petitioner is presently 22 incarcerated at the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson, Texas. Bluebonnet Detention Center is 23 located in Jones County.1 Jones County is part of the United States District Court for the Northern 24 District of Texas. Accordingly, the undersigned will order that this case be transferred to the

25 1 This case was opened by the Clerk’s Office as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 case. It is more 26 appropriately designated as a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. To the undersigned’s knowledge no other case involving this petitioner is pending in the Eastern District 27 of California. Jurisdiction over this § 2241 petition is proper only in the district in which petitioner’s immediate custodian is located. See Monk v. Secretary of the Navy, 793 F.2d 364, 28 369 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (cited in Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 895 (9th Cir. 1996)). 1 appropriate district for review. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the United States 2 District Court for the Northern District of Texas. 3 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is transferred to the 4 United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. 5 Dated: May 18, 2020 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BERNABE J. NUNEZ-GUZMAN, No. 2:20-cv-00835 TLN GGH P 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER 14 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY IMMIGRATION REVIEW, 15 16 Respondent. 17 18 Petitioner is a federal detainee in the custody of the United States Immigration and 19 Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Petitioner has filed a “Declaration for Default Judgment By Court 20 (Unlawful Detainer Code Civil Proceeding §585(d)).” ECF No. 1. It appears petitioner challenges 21 the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration Detainer against him. Petitioner is presently 22 incarcerated at the Bluebonnet Detention Center in Anson, Texas. Bluebonnet Detention Center is 23 located in Jones County.1 Jones County is part of the United States District Court for the Northern 24 District of Texas. Accordingly, the undersigned will order that this case be transferred to the

25 1 This case was opened by the Clerk’s Office as a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 case. It is more 26 appropriately designated as a habeas corpus action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. To the undersigned’s knowledge no other case involving this petitioner is pending in the Eastern District 27 of California. Jurisdiction over this § 2241 petition is proper only in the district in which petitioner’s immediate custodian is located. See Monk v. Secretary of the Navy, 793 F.2d 364, 28 369 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (cited in Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 895 (9th Cir. 1996)). 1 appropriate district for review. Therefore, this action will be transferred to the United States 2 District Court for the Northern District of Texas. 3 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is transferred to the 4 United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. 5 Dated: May 18, 2020 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC)Nunez-Guzman v. Department of Homeland Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hcnunez-guzman-v-department-of-homeland-security-caed-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack