Vahe Abelyan v. Fereti Semaia; Kristi Noem; Pam Bondi; and Todd Lyons

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VAHE ABELYAN, No. 1:26-cv-01789-KES-SKO (HC) 12 Petitioner, 13 v. ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE BACK TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 FERETI SEMAIA; KRISTI NOEM; PAM FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF BONDI; and TODD LYONS, CALIFORNIA 15 Respondents. 16

17 18 Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 19 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 20 On February 17, 2026, petitioner filed the instant habeas petition in the United States 21 District Court for the Central District of California. At the time of filing, petitioner was detained 22 at the Adelanto ICE Processing Center, which resides within the jurisdiction of the Central 23 District. Petitioner named, among others, his immediate custodian, Warden Fereti Semaia. 24 On February 26, 2026, petitioner advised that he had been transferred to the California 25 City Correctional Facility in California City, which resides within the jurisdiction of the Eastern 26 District. On March 5, 2026, the Central District Court transferred the matter to the Eastern 27 District, finding jurisdiction had “shifted.” 28 The Court finds the petition was incorrectly transferred. “[A] habeas petitioner 1 challenging his present physical custody within the United States must file in the district in which 2 he is detained at the time of filing and must name as respondent his immediate custodian.” 3 Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 449, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004). And “when the 4 Government moves a habeas petitioner after [he] properly files a petition naming [his] immediate 5 custodian, the District Court retains jurisdiction and may direct the writ to any respondent within 6 its jurisdiction who has legal authority to effectuate the prisoner’s release.” Id.; Lennear v. 7 Wilson, 937 F.3d 257, 263 n.1 (4th Cir. 2019) (When the “Government moves a habeas petitioner 8 after [he] properly files a petition naming [his] immediate custodian, the District Court [where the 9 petitioner filed a petition] retains jurisdiction.”) (citing Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 441); Gamboa v. 10 Daniels, 26 F.4th 410, 414 (7th Cir. 2022) (same); see also Ballard v. United States, No. 2:24- 11 CV-06080-SSS-E, 2024 WL 4646964, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2024), appeal dismissed, No. 24- 12 7542, 2025 WL 3780269 (9th Cir. May 29, 2025) (same); De La Garza v. Albarran, No. 25-CV- 13 10305-HSG, 2025 WL 3485157, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2025) (same). 14 As petitioner was detained within the jurisdiction of the Central District when he filed his 15 petition and he named his immediate custodian as respondent, the Court finds the petition should 16 have remained in the Central District as initially filed. The appropriate remedy is to transfer the 17 matter back to the Central District of California. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19

20 Dated: March 10, 2026 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 21

22 23 24 25 26 27 28