Reported / Citable
Background
Fayiz Fareed Abdallah filed a federal habeas petition on May 8, 2026, while detained at ERO El Paso Camp East Montana in El Paso, Texas. After filing, he was moved to the Otero County Processing Center in New Mexico.
Abdallah asked the Western District of Texas to transfer his habeas case to the District of New Mexico. The respondents did not consent to a transfer.
The Court’s Holding
Judge Leon Schydlower denied the transfer motion. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Abdallah could not have brought the case in New Mexico when he filed it, and the respondents had not consented to venue there.
The court also held that Abdallah had not shown the District of New Mexico was clearly more convenient. He identified no sources of proof or witnesses in either district, remained close enough to the Western District of Texas to travel there relatively easily, and the public-interest factors did not favor transfer. Both districts were equally familiar with the governing law, New Mexico had no distinct local interest in this federal-law dispute, and Abdallah identified no conflict-of-laws concern.
Key Takeaways
- A detainee’s post-filing transfer to another state does not itself justify transferring a pending habeas case.
- The movant must show that the proposed transferee forum is clearly more convenient.
- Transfer was unavailable here because New Mexico was not a district where the petition could have been brought when filed, and respondents did not consent.
Why It Matters
The order applies the Fifth Circuit’s demanding § 1404(a) transfer standard to an immigration habeas proceeding. Litigants seeking transfer must provide concrete evidence concerning witnesses, proof, and practical convenience; a change in the petitioner’s detention location alone is insufficient.