Josue Daniel Cruz Banos v. Sergio Alberran, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California denied, without prejudice, a detained immigration petitioner’s motion for a temporary restraining order filed alongside a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. The court held that the petitioner had not named the immediate custodian at the detention facility as the respondent, as required for a core habeas challenge. The matter was referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings, including possible amendment of the petition.

Holdings

1. A petitioner challenging present physical custody under § 2241 must generally name the immediate custodian, ordinarily the warden of the facility where the petitioner is detained; naming remote supervisory officials does not satisfy that requirement.
2. Petitioner was not entitled to a temporary restraining order because he had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits of his § 2241 petition.

Questions Presented

1. Whether petitioner was entitled to a temporary restraining order when his § 2241 petition challenging present physical confinement did not name the immediate custodian.
2. Whether the Eastern District of California was the proper district for petitioner's core § 2241 habeas challenge.

Disposition

other