Marti Corona v. Shaver et al

1
a
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
REYDEL MARTI CORONA #A099-
571-880,
Petitioner
CIVIL DOCKET NO. 1:26-CV-00868
SEC P
VERSUS 	JUDGE EDWARDS
ANDREA SHAVER ET AL,
Respondents
MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss or Transfer (ECF No. 34) filed by the
Government with respect to the pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Reydel Marti-Corona (“Marti-Corona”).
Because this Court lacks jurisdiction, the alternative Motion to Transfer
should be GRANTED.
I. 	Background
Marti-Corona’s Petition was filed in the Southern District of Texas. 	It was
transferred to this Court because Marti-Corona has been transferred to the Central
Louisiana ICE Processing Center in Jena, Louisiana. ECF No. 20.
The Government moves to dismiss the Petition or transfer back to Texas
because this Court lacks jurisdiction.
Case 4:26-cv-06006 Document 40 Filed 07/13/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 3

2
II. 	Law and Analysis
“In general, ‘[t]he only district that may consider a habeas corpus challenge to
present physical confinement pursuant to § 2241 is the district court in which the
[petitioner] is confined.’”
Dada v. Witte, No. 20-CV-1093, 2020 WL 1674129, at *2
(E.D. La. Apr. 6, 2020) (quoting
United States v. McPhearson, 451 F. App'x 384, 387
(5th Cir. 2011) (per curiam) (citing
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442-43 (2004);
Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370, 375 n.5 (5th Cir. 2001)). 	And jurisdiction attaches with
the initial filing of a petition; it is not destroyed by a transfer of the petitioner and
accompanying custodial change.
Smith v. Fleming, 4:02-CV-440, 2002 WL 31114021,
at *2 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 20, 2002) (citations omitted).
Because 	Marti-Corona 	was 	not 	detained 	within 	the 	Western 	District 	of
Louisiana at the time of filing (ECF No. 34), this Court lacks jurisdiction.1
	See
Padilla, 542 U.S. at 443 (district of incarceration at the time of filing is the only
district that has jurisdiction over a § 2241 petition).
A court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district “to any district or
division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. §§ 1406, 1631.
III. 	Conclusion
Because this Court lacks jurisdiction, IT IS RECOMMENDED that the
Government’s alternative Motion to Transfer to the Southern District of Texas (ECF
No. 34) be GRANTED.
1 It is further noted that although Marti-Corona was temporarily transferred to Louisiana,
he was transported back to Texas, where he remains detained. ECF No. 34.
Case 4:26-cv-06006 Document 40 Filed 07/13/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 3

3
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), a party may file
written objections to this Report and Recommendation within 14 days of service,
unless the Court grants an extension of time to file objections under Fed. R. Civ. P.
6(b). 	A party may also respond to another party’s objections to this Report and
Recommendation within 14 days of service of those objections, again unless the Court
grants an extension of time to file a response to objections.
No other briefs may be filed without leave of court, which will only be granted
for good cause. 	A party’s failure to timely file written objections to this Report and
Recommendation will bar a party from later challenging factual or legal conclusions
adopted by the District Judge, except if the challenge asserts “plain error.”
SIGNED on Monday, July 13, 2026.
_______________________________________
JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 4:26-cv-06006 Document 40 Filed 07/13/26 in TXSD Page 3 of 3