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

Opinion

HAO HUY PHAN, 1:25-cv-01153-CDB (HC) Petitioner, ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR v. THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DETENTION FACILITY, et al., (Doc. 1) Respondents.

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

1 Petitioner alleges that the San Francisco Field Office of ICE “is a legal custodian of Petitioner.” Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. SOORDERED. Dated: _ September 9, 2025 | V Vv KD UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (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 nota supervisory custodian. See Doe, 109 F.4th at 1195-97.