Pena-Ramirez v. Noem et al Case transferred to the Western District of Texas, Waco Division.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT •
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
MIGUEL ANJEL PENA RAMIREZ, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
vs. 	§ 	CIVIL ACTION NO. H-25-5484
§
KRISTI NOEM, et al., 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
ORDER TO TRANSFER
The petitioner, Miguel Anjel Pena Ramirez, filed apetition for writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his continued detention by the United
States Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement ("ICE"). 	(Dkt. 4). 	He has now filed an ex parte motion to change
venue, seeking to have this action transferred to the Western District of Texas. (Dkt.
6). 	After reviewing the petition, the motion, all matters of record, and the law, the
Court grants the motion and orders that this action be transferred.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Pena-Ramirez is a Mexican national who first came to the United States in
1996. 	(Dkt. 4, p. 5). 	He entered without inspection, and he had no contact with
anyone from the Department of Homeland Security or ICE until June 2025, when he
was arrested and charged with inadmissibility. 	(Id.). 	On July 	10, 2025, 	an
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
December 01, 2025
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 4:25-cv-05484 Document 7 Filed on 12/01/25 in TXSD Page 1 of 6

immigration judge held a custody redetermination and bond hearing and determined
that Pena-Ramirez was subject to mandatory detention as a flight risk. 	(Dkts. 4, p.
5; 4-1 ). Pena-Ramirez alleges that the government offered no evidence at the bond
hearing and that there is no evidentiary basis to support the finding that he is a flight
risk. (Dkts. 4, p. 9; 2, p. 4 ).
In his current petition, Pena-Ramirez alleges that his due process rights were
violated by the denial of his request for bond. (Dkt. 4, p. 6). 	He contends that he
was improperly denied bond based not on any evidence that he is a flight risk, but
instead on newly adopted DHS policies that require mandatory detention for any
noncitizen present in the country without inspection. (Id.). He asks the Court to find
that DHS's new interpretation and application of the immigration statutes violates
federal law and the Constitution and order that he be immediately released on bond.
(Id. at 9-11 ). Pena-Ramirez has also filed a motion for a temporary restraining order
on the same basis. (Dkt. 2).
When Pena-Ramirez filed his petition, ICE was holding him at the Joe Corley
processing facility in Conroe, Montgomery County, Texas. 	Pena-Ramirez thus
properly filed his action in the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. 	See
28 U.S.C. § 124(b)(2). 	However, after the petition was filed and before service of
process on any of the respondents, ICE officials relocated Pena-Ramirez to the
Limestone County Detention Center in Groesbeck, Limestone County, Texas. (Dkt.
2/6
Case 4:25-cv-05484 Document 7 Filed on 12/01/25 in TXSD Page 2 of 6

6). Limestone County is located in the Western District of Texas, Waco Division.
See 28 U.S.C. § 124(d)(2).
Based on this relocation, Pena-Ramirez filed an ex parte motion to transfer
this case to the Western District of Texas. (Dkt. 6). This motion is granted, for the
reasons explained below.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Federal district courts have jurisdiction to consider petitions filed under 28
U.S.C. §2241 that challenge the validity of a noncitizen's continued detention. 	See
Gui v. Rozas, 163 F. App'x 317, 318-19 (5th Cir. 2006) (per curiam). 	However,
§ 2241(a) limits district courts' authority to grant writs of habeas corpus to those that
arise "within theirrespective jurisdictions." 	See Dada v. Witte, No. CV 20-1093,
2020 WL 1674129, at *3 (E.D. La. Apr. 6, 2020) (quoting Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F.3d
370, 373 (5th Cir. 2001)). 	And for "core habeas petitions challenging present
. physical 	confinement,· jurisdiction 	lies 	in 	only 	one 	district: 	the 	district 	of •
confinement." Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,443 (2004); see also United States
v. McPhearson, 451 F. App'x 384,387 (5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam). While the Fifth
Circuit has not specifically addressed this issue in the context of a habeas petition
filed by a noncitizen pending removal, courts in this district have consistently found
that the proper district for filing of the petition is the district of confinement and the
proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the petitioner is being held.
3/6
Case 4:25-cv-05484 Document 7 Filed on 12/01/25 in TXSD Page 3 of 6

See, e.g., Sanchez Puentes v. Garite, No. EP-25-cv-00127-DB, 2025 WL 1203179,
at *10 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2025); Medina v. Joyce, No. CV 20-1777, 2020 WL
5072732, at *4 {E.D. La. Aug. 26, 2020).
Pena-Ramirez admits that he was detained in the Southern District when he
filed his petition. But in his motion to transfer, Pena-Ramirez seems to contend that
his post-filing transfer deprives this Court of jurisdiction over his petition. 	This
contention is incorrect. When a person detained in one federal district files a petition
for writ of habeas corpus in that district, the court in that district does not lose
jurisdiction to rule on that petition if the petitioner is later moved to a different
district. 	See Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 441 ("When the Government moves a habeas
petitioner after she properly filed a petition naming her immediate custodian, the
District Court retains jurisdiction and may direct the writ to any respondent within
its jurisdiction who has legal authority to effectuate the prisoner's release."); Griffin
v. Ebbert, 751 F.3d 288, 290 (5th Cir. 2014) ("Jurisdiction attached on th[e] initial
filing for habeas corpus relief, and it was not destroyed by the transfer of petitioner
and accompanying custodial change."). 	Therefore, Pena-Ramirez's post-filing
relocation to the Limestone County Detention Center did not divest this Court of
jurisdiction over his petition, and transfer is not required.
However, when jurisdiction over an action lies in more than one district, the
district court has broad authority to transfer the case in the interests of justice to
4/6
Case 4:25-cv-05484 Document 7 Filed on 12/01/25 in TXSD Page 4 of 6

another district in which the action might have been brought. 	See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1404(a), 1406; Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1067 (5th Cir. 1999). 	In
determining 	whether 	to 	transfer 	an 	action, 	the 	district 	court 	considers 	"the
convenience of parties and witnesses" and "the interest of justice." 	28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a).
Pena-Ramirez's presence in the Western District of Texas makes that forum
more convenient for him than the Southern District. His counsel is based in Florida
and will need to either travel to Texas for hearings or appear electronically. 	Travel
to either district, if necessary, will be equally burdensome for counsel. As with Pena-
Ramirez's counsel, several of the respondents are based in Washington, D.C., and,
once served, their travel to either district in Texas will be equally burdensome.
Counsel has stated an intent to substitute the warden of Pena-Ramirez's current
facility for the previously named warden. 	Records relating to Pena-Ramirez's
immigration history and detention are equally available in either district.
Having considered all of these circumstances, the Court determines that this
case should be transferred for the convenience of the witnesses to the district in
which Pena-Ramirez is currently detained.
5/6
Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
1. The Ex Parte Motion to Change Venue filed by Petitioner Miguel Anjel Pena-
Ramirez, (Dkt. 6), is GRANTED.
Case 4:25-cv-05484 Document 7 Filed on 12/01/25 in TXSD Page 5 of 6

6/6
2. 	The. Clerk of Court must TRANSFER this case to the Western District of
Texas, Waco Division.
3. Pena-Ramirez 	is 	advised 	to 	file 	all 	further 	pleadings, 	motions, 	and
correspondence related to his petition in the Western District after the Clerk
has provided him with the new case number for this action.
The Clerk will provide a copy of this Order to Transfer to the petitioner.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas on 	~~ 	l 	2025.----~-------~
DAVID HITTNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 4:25-cv-05484 Document 7 Filed on 12/01/25 in TXSD Page 6 of 6