Flores Delgado v. Lynch et al

Filing 3

ORDER Transferring Case to the United States District of Arizona signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 07/22/2015. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E) [Transferred from caed on 7/24/2015.]

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

GABRIEL FLORES DELGADO,

10

Petitioner,

11

v.

12

LORETTA E. LYNCH, ET AL.,

13

CASE NO. 1:15-CV-1006----SMS (HC)
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Related case: 2:15-cv-1273 (D. Ariz.)

Respondents.

14
15
16

Petitioner is a prisoner with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

17

2241 (“section 2241”). Petitioner is incarcerated at a federal detention center in Eloy, Arizona.

18

Because Petitioner is confined in Arizona and the facts giving rise to his challenge occurred in

19

Arizona, this case should have been brought in the United States District Court, District of

20

Arizona, and it will be transferred there.

21

In addition, it appears that Petitioner had filed a substantially similar petition in the Central

22

District of California, which was transferred first to the Eastern District of California and then, on

23

July 9, 2015, to the District of Arizona. The District of Arizona case number is 2:15-CV-1273.

24

Consolidation may be appropriate.

25

Petitioner alleges that he is a citizen of Mexico, and was admitted into the United States in

26

1994. Doc. 1 at ¶ 17. He lived in Salem, Oregon, where he has two minor children, for several

27

decades. Id. at ¶ 6. He alleges that he was convicted in Marion County, Oregon for sex abuse, but

28

the case was eventually “vacated.” Id. at ¶19. He has been in immigration detention since July

1

2012. Id. at ¶ 1. He alleges that he is being detained pending a decision on whether he is to be

2

removed from the United States. Id. at 5:13-18. At a bond hearing in March 2015, pursuant to

3

Casas-Castrillon v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008), an immigration judge

4

found that Petitioner was a danger to the community and should not be released. Id. at ¶ 25.

5

Petitioner believes that the Department of Homeland Security had not met its burden at the bond

6

hearing to show by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner was a danger to the community.

7

Id. at ¶ 25, 26. He points to his disciplinary record, criminal record, mental health reports,

8

evidence of rehabilitation, history of flight, prior immigration history, and family ties. Id. at ¶ 26.

9

Petitioner has been waiting for his removal trial for almost three years. Id. at ¶ 34. Petitioner

10

desires to be released on bond subject to supervision in order to care for his family and his medical

11

needs. See Doc. 1.

12

Venue in a habeas action is proper in either the district of confinement or the district of

13

conviction. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d). Petitions challenging execution of sentence are preferably

14

heard in the district where the inmate is confined. See Dunne v. Henman, 875 F.2d 244, 249 (9th

15

Cir. 1989). Petitions challenging conviction are preferably heard in the district of conviction.

16

Habeas L. R. 2254-3(a) (b). “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of

17

justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might

18

have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Pursuant to Local Rule 120(f), a civil action which has

19

not been commenced in the proper court, may, on the court’s own motion, be transferred to the

20

proper court.

21

Here, Petitioner states that venue is proper in the Arizona District Court because he is

22

detained in Eloy, Arizona and the records to his claim are likely to be found in Arizona. Doc. 1 at

23

¶ 16, 9:2-7. He brings this action against respondents who are mostly located in Arizona including

24

two immigration judges, the warden at the Eloy Correctional Center, and the Arizona director for

25

the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Petitioner disagrees with the results of at least

26

one bond hearing, at which an immigration judge found that his release would pose a danger to the

27

community. He believes he is being held in violation of his constitutional rights.

28

Petitioner is both being held in Arizona and is challenging actions occurring in Arizona.
2

1

Transfer to the District of Arizona would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and

2

the interest of justice. Hence, venue in Arizona is preferred.

3
4

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is transferred to the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona.

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 22, 2015

/s/ Sandra M. Snyder
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3