(HC)Phan v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Facility

S.D. California

(HC)Phan v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Facility

DecidedSeptember 9, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-02369

StatusUnknown

This text of (HC)Phan v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Facility ((HC)Phan v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Facility) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

(HC)Phan v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Facility, (S.D. Cal. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAO HUY PHAN, 1:25-cv-01153-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 13 v. THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 WARDEN OF THE OTAY MESA DETENTION FACILITY, et al., (Doc. 1) 15 Respondents. 16 17

18 Petitioner Hao Huy Phan, a federal detainee proceeding pro se, initiated this action on 19 September 8, 2025, with the filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 2241. Petitioner challenges his detainment in San Diego County, which is in the Southern District 21 of California. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the Respondent (the warden of the out-of-district 22 facility where Petitioner is in custody). See generally Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188 (9th Cir. 23 2024), pet. for rehrng. en banc or panel rehrng denied, No. 23-15361 (9th Cir. May 29, 2025). 24 Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern 25 District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong 26 district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631; Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th 27 Cir. 1990) (transferring habeas action pursuant to § 1631).1

28 1 Petitioner alleges that the San Francisco Field Office of ICE “is a legal custodian of Petitioner.” 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States 2 | District Court for the Southern District of California. 3 | SOORDERED. 4 Dated: _ September 9, 2025 | V Vv KD 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 || (Doc. 1 at 49). However, for core habeas petitions (such as the petition here), a petitioner must name his immediate custodian, the warden of the facility where he is detained, as the respondent to his petition, and 23 | nota supervisory custodian. See Doe, 109 F.4th at 1195-97.

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAO HUY PHAN, 1:25-cv-01153-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 13 v. THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 WARDEN OF THE OTAY MESA DETENTION FACILITY, et al., (Doc. 1) 15 Respondents. 16 17

18 Petitioner Hao Huy Phan, a federal detainee proceeding pro se, initiated this action on 19 September 8, 2025, with the filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 20 § 2241. Petitioner challenges his detainment in San Diego County, which is in the Southern District 21 of California. This Court lacks jurisdiction over the Respondent (the warden of the out-of-district 22 facility where Petitioner is in custody). See generally Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188 (9th Cir. 23 2024), pet. for rehrng. en banc or panel rehrng denied, No. 23-15361 (9th Cir. May 29, 2025). 24 Therefore, the petition should have been filed in the United States District Court for the Southern 25 District of California. In the interest of justice, a federal court may transfer a case filed in the wrong 26 district to the correct district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631; Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259, 262 (9th 27 Cir. 1990) (transferring habeas action pursuant to § 1631).1

28 1 Petitioner alleges that the San Francisco Field Office of ICE “is a legal custodian of Petitioner.” 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States 2 | District Court for the Southern District of California. 3 | SOORDERED. 4 Dated: _ September 9, 2025 | V Vv KD 5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 || (Doc. 1 at 49). However, for core habeas petitions (such as the petition here), a petitioner must name his immediate custodian, the warden of the facility where he is detained, as the respondent to his petition, and 23 | nota supervisory custodian. See Doe, 109 F.4th at 1195-97.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

(HC)Phan v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Facility, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hcphan-v-warden-of-the-otay-mesa-detention-facility-casd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack