Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Marely Scartett Recinos Ramirez, proceeding without counsel, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Dallas Division of the Northern District of Texas. She paid the filing fee and challenged her detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
When the petition was filed, Recinos Ramirez was confined at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in Anson, Texas. Although Dallas and Anson are both within the Northern District of Texas, Anson is in Jones County and therefore falls within the district’s Abilene Division.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that venue was improper in the Dallas Division. Under the immediate-custodian rule governing challenges to present physical confinement, a Section 2241 petition generally must be brought where the petitioner is confined, with the petitioner’s immediate custodian named as the proper respondent.
Because Recinos Ramirez was detained in the Abilene Division when she filed the petition, Magistrate Judge David L. Horan ordered the case transferred immediately to that division under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406(a) and 1631. The court raised the venue issue on its own and treated the intradistrict transfer as a nondispositive pretrial matter. It did not decide the merits of the habeas claims.
Key Takeaways
- A Section 2241 challenge to present physical confinement generally belongs in the district or division where the petitioner is confined.
- The proper respondent in such a case is ordinarily the petitioner’s immediate custodian, not a supervisory official exercising broader legal control.
- A magistrate judge may order an intradistrict transfer as a nondispositive matter when the case was filed in the wrong division.
Why It Matters
The order underscores that immigration detainees bringing Section 2241 petitions must account for the location of physical custody when selecting a venue and identifying the respondent. Filing elsewhere within the same judicial district may still result in transfer to the division covering the detention facility.
The decision is procedural only: it determines where the habeas action will proceed without resolving whether Recinos Ramirez’s detention is lawful.