Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
FATIH YILMAZ,
Petitioner
V.
MICHAEL ROSE, Field Office
Director of Enforcement and
Removal Operations,
Philadelphia Field Office,
Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, et al.,
Respondents
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-321
(JUDGE MANNION)
MEMORANDUM
Presently before the court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. §2241 . For the reasons stated below, the court will direct that the
matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania and direct the Clerk of Court to close the case in this
court.
By way of relevant background, on February 10, 2026, counsel for the
petitioner filed the instant action in this district claiming that the application
of§ 1225(b )(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA") to the petitioner
unlawfully mandates the petitioner's continued detention and violates the
INA. 	Further, 	counsel 	argues that the 	application 	of §1225(b)(2) to the
Case 3:26-cv-00321-MEM Document 2 Filed 02/13/26 Page 1 of 5

petitioner is a violation of the bond regulations found at 8 C.F.R. §§236.1,
1236.1 and 1003. 19. Finally, counsel argues that the government's detention
of the 	petitioner without 	a 	bond 	redetermination 	hearing 	to 	determine
whether he is a flight risk or danger to others violates his right of due process.
The filing fee has been submitted.
District courts are obligated to screen habeas petitions pursuant to
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts. See R. 4, 28 U.S.C. foll. §2254 ("The clerk must promptly
forward the petition to a judge under the court's assignment procedure, and
the court must promptly examine it. " ). Rule 4 may be applied in habeas cases
brought under Section 2241. See R. 1(b), 28 U.S.C. foll. §2254 ("The district
court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not
covered by Rule 1(a)). "). "[A] district court is authorized to dismiss a [habeas]
petition summarily when it plainly appears from the face of the petition and
any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
district court. " Lonchar v. Thomas, 	517 	U.S. 	314, 320 (1996); see a/so
McFarlandv. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) ("Federal courts are authorized
to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on
its face.") .
- 2 -
Case 3:26-cv-00321-MEM Document 2 Filed 02/13/26 Page 2 of 5

The proper respondent in 	a §2241 	petition 	is "the person who has
custody over" the petitioner and who has the power to produce the petitioner
before the court and release him if proper to do so . Rumsfeld v. Padilla , 542
U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §§2242, 2243). Moreover, "' the
court issuing the writ [must] have jurisdiction over the custodian. "' Id. (quoting
Braden v. 30 th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky ., 	410 U.S. 484, 	495 (1973)).
Therefore, the custodian must be within the territorial jurisdiction of the court
issuing the writ. Id. at 445.
The petitioner, on whose behalf this action is filed , is currently confined
at 	the 	Moshannon 	Valley 	Correctional 	Facility 	("MVCF") 	(a/k/a 	the
Moshannon Valley Processing Center) in Phillipsburg, Pennsylvania. (Doc.
1, 1J8). While the MVCF has an address in Philipsburg which is located in
Centre County within the Middle District of Pennsylvania, the actual facility
is situated in Clearfield County which is located in the Western District of
Pennsylvania. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has
agreed that individuals confined at the MVCF seeking habeas relief must file
their petition in the Western District of Pennsylvania, which 	is the district
havi ng jurisdiction over the petitioner's custodian. See Tsoukalas v. United
States, 215 F. App'x 152 (3d Cir. 2007). Because the petitioner is detained
at the MVCF , which has been recognized as being in the Western District of
- 3 -
Case 3:26-cv-00321-MEM Document 2 Filed 02/13/26 Page 3 of 5

Pennsylvania, this court does not have jurisdiction over the instant habeas
petition .
Although this court lacks jurisdiction over the instant petition, it may
transfer the action to another federal court that does have jurisdiction if it is
in the interest of justice to do so. See 28 U.S.C. §1631. " In determining
whether transfer is ' in the interest of justice, ' courts have considered whether
the failure to transfer would prejudice the litigant, whether the litigant filed the
orig inal action in good faith, and other equitable factors." United States v.
Banks, 372 F. App'x 237, 239 (3d Cir. 2010).
In th is case, the court finds that it would be in the interest of justice to
transfer this 	action 	to 	the 	Western 	District 	of 	Pennsylvania. 	Given 	the
confusion of the address of the MVCF and its actual physical location , there
is no indication that the petition was filed in this court in bad faith . Moreover,
there does not appear to be any equ itable factors that would weigh against
transferring the action.
- 4 -
Case 3:26-cv-00321-MEM Document 2 Filed 02/13/26 Page 4 of 5

For the reasons set forth above, the court will transfer the instant action
to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
and direct that the case be closed in this district. An appropriate order shall
issue.
DATE:
26- 32 1-01
tes District Judge
- 5 -
Case 3:26-cv-00321-MEM Document 2 Filed 02/13/26 Page 5 of 5