Summary
The Southern District of New York grants Respondents’ unopposed motion to transfer a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition to the District of New Jersey because the petitioner was physically detained in New Jersey when the petition was filed. The court also enjoins the Government from removing the petitioner from New Jersey or the United States unless the transferee court orders otherwise.
Holdings
- Jurisdiction over a core habeas petition challenging present physical confinement lies in the district of confinement, meaning the district where the petitioner is physically present when the petition is filed.
- Transfer to the District of New Jersey was warranted because the evidence established that Petitioner was confined there when the petition was filed.
Questions Presented
- Whether a core habeas petition challenging present physical confinement should be transferred to the district where the petitioner was physically confined when the petition was filed.
- Whether the record established that Petitioner was confined in the District of New Jersey when the petition was filed.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (5)
- Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382, 391 (2d Cir. 2025)(followed)
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004)(followed)
- Golding v. Sessions, No. 18-CV-3036 (RJS), 2018 WL 6444400, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2018)(followed)
- Avillan v. Donahue, No. 12-CV-03370 (AJN), 2013 WL 12084502, at *1-2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 15, 2013)(considered)
- Saamishvili v. Flanagan, No. 25-CV-09181 (ER), 2025 WL 3090134, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 5, 2025)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…