PUSEPA v. WOLF et al
Filing
5
ORDER: For the reasons set forth in the Court's prior orders in Torres Martinez and Benitez and in accord with the weight of authority in this District, the Court holds sua sponte that it lacks venue over Petitioner's core habeas claim. The Court therefore transfers this case to the District of New Jersey forthwith and without delay. The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all remaining dates, and to close this case. In light of the need for urg ent judicial attention to petitioners' claims, the Court waives the seven-day period provided in Local Civil Rule 83.1 to effectuate a transfer to a different district. Because of the significant liberty interests and other equities at stake, and in recognition of the grave risks that continued confinement may pose to Petitioner's health, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to effectuate this transfer urgently. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Gregory H. Woods on 4/24/2020) (ama)
Case 2:20-cv-05059-CCC Document 5 Filed 04/24/20 Page 1 of 2 PageID: 73
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
----------------------------------------------------------------X
:
YEKATRINA PUSEPA,
:
Petitioner, :
:
:
-againstTHOMAS DECKER, Director, ICE N.Y. Field :
Office, and CHAD WOLF, Acting Secretary of the :
:
Department of Homeland Security,
:
Respondents. :
:
--------------------------------------------------------------- X
USDC SDNY
DOCUMENT
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC #: _________________
DATE FILED: 4/24/2020
1:20-cv-3224-GHW
ORDER
GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:
On April 23, 2020, Petitioner filed a petition for habeas corpus. Dkt No. 1. Because the
petition asserts only a single “core” habeas claim, it is properly heard only in the petitioner’s district
of confinement. See Order to Show Cause, Torres Martinez v. Decker, No. 19 Civ. 8727 (GHW)
(S.D.N.Y. Oct. 2, 2019), Dkt No. 7; Benitez v. An Unknown Immigration Officer Employed by the
Department of Homeland Security, No. 19 Civ. 3153 (GHW) (S.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019), Dkt No.
3; see also Arriaga Reyes v. Decker, No. 20 Civ. 2737 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 2, 2020), Dkt No. 4, at 3
(collecting cases). Petitioner is currently detained in the Hudson County Jail in New Jersey, Dkt No.
1 ¶¶ 1-2, which is located in the judicial district of the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey. See 28 U.S.C. § 110.
For the reasons set forth in the Court’s prior orders in Torres Martinez and Benitez and in
accord with the weight of authority in this District, the Court holds sua sponte that it lacks venue over
Petitioner’s core habeas claim. 1 The Court therefore transfers this case to the District of New Jersey
Under ordinary circumstances, the Court might be inclined to proceed via an order to show cause to allow the
parties to stipulate to a transfer of jurisdiction, as the Court did in Torres Martinez, or to allow the parties to brief the
issue. However, given the urgent nature of Petitioner’s claim, the Court has chosen to proceed expeditiously, so that
Petitioner’s claims can be decided on the merits as quickly as possible.
1
Case 2:20-cv-05059-CCC Document 5 Filed 04/24/20 Page 2 of 2 PageID: 74
forthwith and without delay.
The Clerk of Court is further directed to terminate all pending motions, adjourn all
remaining dates, and to close this case. In light of the need for urgent judicial attention to
petitioners’ claims, the Court waives the seven-day period provided in Local Civil Rule 83.1 to
effectuate a transfer to a different district. Because of the significant liberty interests and other
equities at stake, and in recognition of the grave risks that continued confinement may pose to
Petitioner’s health, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to effectuate this transfer urgently.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 24, 2020
__________________________________
GREGORY H. WOODS
United States District Judge
2
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?