Junior Rodriguez Gonzales v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: December 19, 2025
• Docket: 5:25-cv-10838
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 JUNIOR RODRIGUEZ GONZALES, Case No. 25-cv-10838-EKL 8 Plaintiff, ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITHOUT 9 Vv. PREJUDICE 10 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS Re: Dkt. No. 1 ENFORCEMENT, et al., Defendants. 12

13 Jurisdiction over habeas petitions like the one in this case “lies in only one district: the 14 district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004); see also Doe v. Garland, 3 15 109 F.4th 1188, 1197-99 (9th Cir. 2024) (applying this principle to a habeas petition challenging a 16 |] immigration detention). According to the Court’s electronic case filing system, Petitioner filed his 3 17 habeas petition on December 19, 2025, at 11:15 a.m. At that time, Petitioner was detained — and 18 || continues to be detained — at the California City Detention Facility. Petition Jf 1, 5-6, 11, ECF 19 || No. 1; see also ECF No. 3-2 at 3. That facility is located in the Eastern District of California. 20 The Court therefore DISMISSES this case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Time 21 || is of the essence, and dismissal will facilitate expeditious re-filing of the petition in the Eastern 22 || District of California, whereas transfer may cause prejudicial delay. Cf. Y.G.H. v. Trump, 787 F. 23 || Supp. 3d 1097, 1109 (E.D. Cal. 2025) (dismissing rather than transferring case based on the 24 || “interest of justice”). The Court expresses no view on the merits of the petition. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 Dated: December 19, 2025

Eumi K. Lee 28 United States District Judge