Mubita A. Kanay v. Cristofer Chestnut

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 1, 2026
• Docket: 2:26-cv-01573
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 MUBITA A. KANAY, 4 Petitioner, Case No. 2:26-cv-01573-GMN-EJY 5 vs. ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE 6 CRISTOFER CHESTNUT, 7 Respondent. 8 9 Pending before the Court is Petitioner Mubita A. Kanay’s Petition for Habeas Corpus 10 Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (ECF No. 1). Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee 11 proceeding pro se. 12 “Federal courts are always under an independent obligation to examine their own 13 jurisdiction, and a federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no jurisdiction.” 14 Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (per curiam) (internal quotation 15 marks and citation omitted). “Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his 16 present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent 17 and file the petition in the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 18 (2005). The Ninth Circuit has “affirm[ed] the application of the immediate custodian and 19 district of confinement rules to core habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 20 including those filed by immigration detainees.” Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1199 (9th 21 Cir. 2024). 22 Here, the Petition challenges Petitioner’s current detention at the California City 23 Immigration Processing Center in California City, California. The Petition was filed while 24 Petitioner was being detained at the California City Immigration Processing Center. Because 25 California City is located within Kern County, which is in the territorial boundaries of the 1 Eastern District of California, this Court lacks jurisdiction under § 2241 to entertain a challenge 2 to his custody. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b) (“The Eastern District comprises the counties of Alpine, 3 Amador, Butte, Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Lassen, 4 Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Modoc, Mono, Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Sacramento, San Joaquin, 5 Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Tulare, Tuolumne, Yolo, 6 and Yuba.”). Therefore, the Petition cannot proceed in this judicial district. 7 When a civil action, including a habeas petition, is filed in a court lacking jurisdiction, 8 transfer may be appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 if three conditions are satisfied: (1) the 9 transferring court lacks jurisdiction; (2) the transferee court could have exercised jurisdiction at 10 the time the action was filed; and (3) the transfer is in the interest of justice. See Cruz-Aguilera 11 v. INS, 245 F.3d 1070, 1074 (9th Cir. 2001). 12 Here, all three factors are satisfied. First, this Court lacks jurisdiction under § 2241 13 because the Petition challenges present physical custody outside of this district. Second, the 14 Eastern District of California could have exercised jurisdiction over the Petition when it was 15 filed because Petitioner is detained within that district and Petitioner’s custodian is subject to 16 the authority of that judicial district. Third, transfer would avoid unnecessary dismissal and 17 refiling, thereby serving the interest of justice. Accordingly, the Court concludes that this 18 action should be transferred to the Eastern District of California in the interest of justice. See 28 19 U.S.C. § 1631.

20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDRED that this action is TRANSFERRED to the United States 3 || District Court for the Eastern District of California. 4 The Clerk of Court is kindly directed to mail Petitioner a copy of this Order. 5 DATED this 1 day of June, 2026. Yj,

7 Gloria M. Kaao, District Judge United States District Court

9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Page 3 of 3