Pal v. United States Department of Homeland Security

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Louisiana
DecidedJanuary 3, 2020
Docket1:20-cv-00011
StatusUnknown

This text of Pal v. United States Department of Homeland Security (Pal v. United States Department of Homeland Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pal v. United States Department of Homeland Security, (W.D. La. 2020).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 5 AT SEATTLE 6 KARAN PAL, 7 A 203 676 320, C19-2092 MJP MAT 8 Petitioner, ORDER 9 v. 10 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 11 SECURITY, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 Petitioner Karan Pal is a native and citizen of India who is currently detained by 14 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the LaSalle Correctional Center in 15 16 Olla, Louisiana, and who has, through counsel, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 17 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, docket no. 1, together with a motion for a temporary 18 restraining order (“TRO”), docket no. 2.1 Petitioner, who arrived at the southern border of 19

20 1 Notably absent from the petition for writ of habeas corpus, docket no. 1, and the motion for a temporary restraining order, docket no. 2, is any indication of where petitioner is being held. By 21 Minute Order entered December 28, 2019, docket no. 4, the Court directed petitioner to supply, as soon as possible, a supplemental brief and supporting declaration indicating petitioner’s 22 whereabouts and the anticipated timing of his removal, and addressing whether the Court has jurisdiction. Despite oral representations to Clerk’s Office staff that petitioner was scheduled to 23 be removed from the United States on Saturday, December 28, 2019, petitioner’s counsel did not file the requested supplemental brief and supporting declaration until January 3, 2020. During 1 the United States (at Calexico, California) on September 3, 2019, challenges the 2 determination of an asylum officer, subsequently upheld by an immigration judge, that 3 petitioner should not be allowed to apply for asylum in the United States based on a July 16, 4 2019, rule barring asylum for those who arrive in the United States “after transiting through 5 at least one country outside the alien’s country of citizenship.” See Pet.’s Mot. at 3 (docket 6 no. 2) (citing 8 C.F.R. 208(c)(4), but actually referring to 8 C.F.R. § 208.13(c)(4)). 7 Having reviewed all papers filed by petitioner, including the supplemental brief, 8 docket no. 6, and supporting declaration, docket no. 7, filed in response to the Minute Order 9 entered December 28, 2019, docket no. 4, the Court now ORDERS as follows: 10 (1) Federal courts may grant writs of habeas corpus only “within their respective 11 12 jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Although the physical presence of a habeas petitioner 13 within the judicial district “is not an absolute jurisdictional prerequisite, but rather a 14 requirement [that] can give way to considerations of fairness and basic convenience,” see 15 Kinnell v. Warner, 356 F. Supp. 779, 781 (D. Haw. 1973), the Court may not grant habeas 16 relief if the petitioner’s custodian is outside its territorial jurisdiction. See Sholars v. 17 Matter, 491 F.2d 279, 281 & n.5 (9th Cir. 1974). This Court lacks jurisdiction because 18 19 20 the interim, the Court resorted to independent research, and learned from ICE’s online detainee 21 locator (https://locator.ice.gov) that petitioner is in custody at LaSalle Correctional Center in Olla, Louisiana. On January 2, 2020, the Court’s law clerk confirmed the information on ICE’s 22 website via a telephone conversation with personnel in the booking area at LaSalle Correctional Center. In a declaration filed on January 3, 2020, petitioner’s counsel indicated that petitioner’s 23 family believes petitioner is “somewhere in Mississippi and that his removal is imminent.” Frick Decl. at ¶ 7 (docket no. 7). Petitioner’s counsel has provided no explanation or grounds for such beliefs. 1 neither the petitioner nor his custodian, i.e., Chris Frederick, the Warden of LaSalle 2 Correctional Center, are within the boundaries of this district. 3 (2) This action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the Western District of Louisiana 4 at Alexandria. See Miller v. Hambrick, 905 F.2d 259 (9th Cir. 1990); see also 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1631. 6 (3) The Clerk is DIRECTED to send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record 7 and to alert the Western District of Louisiana about the pending motion for temporary 8 restraining order. 9 DATED this 3rd day of January 2020. 10

11 A 12 Thomas S. Zilly 13 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kinnell v. Warner
356 F. Supp. 779 (D. Hawaii, 1973)
Sholars v. Matter
491 F.2d 279 (Ninth Circuit, 1974)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Pal v. United States Department of Homeland Security, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pal-v-united-states-department-of-homeland-security-lawd-2020.