Ramos Quinn-Goncalves v. ICE Field Office

CourtDistrict Court, D. Massachusetts
DecidedMarch 15, 2024
Docket1:24-cv-10653
StatusUnknown

This text of Ramos Quinn-Goncalves v. ICE Field Office (Ramos Quinn-Goncalves v. ICE Field Office) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Massachusetts primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Ramos Quinn-Goncalves v. ICE Field Office, (D. Mass. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IGOR LEANDRO RAMOS QUINN- * GONCALVES, * * Petitioner, *

* Civil Action No. 24-10653-ADB v. *

*

ICE FIELD OFFICE, * * Respondent. * *

ORDER OF TRANSFER

BURROUGHS, D.J. Immigration detainee Igor Leandro Ramos Quinn-Goncalves, who is confined at the Strafford County Correctional Facility in Dover, New Hampshire, brings this petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a writ of habeas corpus.1 Quinn-Goncalves maintains that, given his pending petition for asylum, his removal is not reasonably foreseeable. He asks for immediate release. “District courts are limited to granting habeas relief ‘within their respective jurisdictions.’” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a)). Unless a statute explicitly states otherwise, “for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Id. at 443; see also Vasquez v. Reno, 223 F.3d 688, 696 (1st Cir. 2020) (holding that an immigration detainee “who seeks a writ of habeas corpus contesting the legality of his detention by [ICE] normally must name as the respondent his immediate custodian, that is, the individual having day-to-day control over the facility in which he is being detained”).

1 The petition was filed by Kerry Quinn-Goncalves as the petitioner’s next friend. Kerry Quinn- Goncalves represents she is married to the petitioner. Here, the petitioner challenges his present physical confinement in a facility located within the District of New Hampshire. Because the petitioner is not confined in the District of Massachusetts, the Court is without jurisdiction over the present petition—even though the ICE Boston Field Office is located within the District of Massachusetts.

Accordingly, the Court orders that this action be TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire. See 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (providing for transfer of an action to cure lack of jurisdiction).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

March 15, 2024 /s/ Allison D. Burroughs DATE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

Related

Rumsfeld v. Padilla
542 U.S. 426 (Supreme Court, 2004)
United States v. Jose Solis Jordan
223 F.3d 676 (Seventh Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ramos Quinn-Goncalves v. ICE Field Office, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramos-quinn-goncalves-v-ice-field-office-mad-2024.