Matias Sola Quirino v. Loretta Lynch, et.al.

Filing 13

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE. The Clerk shall TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and close this court's file. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 5/16/2016. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/16/2016)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 MATIAS SOLA QUIRINO, Case No. 5:16-cv-02464-EJD Petitioner, 9 ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE v. 10 11 LORETTA E. LYNCH, et al., United States District Court Northern District of California Respondents. 12 13 The court has carefully reviewed Petitioner’s response to the Order to Show Cause (Dkt. 14 No. 12), but maintains its conclusion that the District of Arizona is the proper court to adjudicate 15 Petitioner’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Brittingham v. United States, 982 F.2d 378, 379 16 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The proper respondent in a federal habeas corpus petition is the petitioner’s 17 ‘immediate custodian’ . . . . A custodian ‘is the person having a day-to-day control over the 18 prisoner. That person is the only one who can produce the body of the petitioner.’”); see also 19 United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding that a § 2241 writ “can issue 20 only from a court with jurisdiction over the prisoner or his custodian”). 21 22 Accordingly, the Clerk shall TRANSFER this case to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona and close this court’s file. 23 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 16, 2016 ______________________________________ EDWARD J. DAVILA United States District Judge 26 27 28 1 Case No.: 5:16-cv-02464-EJD ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?