Kieran Thomas Smyth v. William Barr

• Court: District Court, W.D. Texas
• Decided: April 22, 2020
• Docket: 5:20-cv-00493
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 KIERAN THOMAS SMYTH, Case No. 2:20-cv-00584-GMN-DJA

6 Petitioner, ORDER 7 v.

8 WILLIAM BARR, Attorney General of the United States of America, et al., 9 Respondents. 10 11 This habeas matter is before the Court on Petitioner Kieran Thomas Smyth’s Response 12 (ECF No. 3) to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 2). For the reasons discussed below, 13 Smyth’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is transferred to the United States District 14 Court for the Western District of Texas. 15 Smyth is a citizen of United Kingdom who is subject to a final order of removal but has 16 not been physically deported and he is currently detained by the Immigration and Customs 17 Enforcement (“ICE”) division of the Department of Homeland Security. (ECF No. 1.) The 18 Petition, filed March 24, 2020, states that Smyth is currently detained at the South Texas Detention 19 Facility in Pearsall, Texas. (Id. at 2, ¶ 4.) He was transferred to Texas on February 3, 2020, from 20 a detention center in Henderson, Nevada. (Id.) Smyth names as Respondents several federal 21 officials, including Ray Castro of the South Texas Detention Center who Smyth identifies as “the 22 warden in charge of the facility where [he] is held,” and “a legal custodian.” (Id. at 4, ¶ 11.) The 23 Petition further alleges that ICE received an ex parte order from the Western District of Texas to 24 force feed Smyth in response to his hunger strike. (Id. at 14, ¶ 37; see also Ex. 4, ECF No. 1-4.) 25 Based on these allegations, the Court found it was “virtually certain that neither Smyth nor 26 his custodian were in the District of Nevada on the date the Petition was filed, and thus jurisdiction 27 is lacking.” (ECF No. 2 at 3.) The Court issued an Order to Show Cause instructing Smyth to 28 show cause why this action should not be dismissed without prejudice for a lack of jurisdiction. 1 Smyth’s response confirms that he was not detained in the District of Nevada at the time 2 he filed his Petition. Rather, he was detained the Western District of Texas. Because the District 3 of Nevada is not the district of confinement, jurisdiction is lacking. See Lopez-Marroquin v. Barr, 4 --- F.3d ---, 2020 WL 1808002, at *1 (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 2020) (quoting Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 5 U.S. 426, 443 (2004) (“The plain language of the habeas statute . . . confirms the general rule that 6 for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one 7 district: the district of confinement.”) (emphasis added)). The response asks the Court to transfer 8 this matter to the appropriate federal district court. In the interest of justice, the Court therefore 9 transfers this action to the Western District of Texas. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631; Simpson v. Ashcroft, 10 321 F. Supp. 2d 13, 15 (D.D.C. 2004) (transferring a § 2241 habeas petition to the district of 11 confinement); Connally v. Reno, 896 F. Supp. 32, 35 (D.D.C.1995) (same). 12 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: 13 1. Petitioner Kieran Thomas Smyth’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) is 14 TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. 15 2. The Clerk of Court shall close this action.

16 DATED: April 22, 2020

17 ________________________________ 18 GLORIA M. NAVARRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28