Herrera Acosta v. United States Department of Homeland Security et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOU TH ERN D ISTRICT OF FLOR ID A
M iam iDivision
C ase N um ber:25-25380-CIV -M OR EN O
A LEX AN DER H ERRER A A CO STA ,
Petitioner,
VS.
U .S.D EPA RTM EN T OF H O M ELAN D
SECU RITY ;K RISTIN O EM ,Secretary,etal.,
Respondents.
O R DE R G M N TIN G R ESPO N DEN TS'M O TIO N TO TM N SFER V ENU E
THIS CAUSE camebeforetheCoul	'tuponRespondents'M otiontoTransferVenue(D.E.
4).
THE COURT hasconsidered the m otion,the response in opposition,the reply,pertinent
portionsoftherecord,and isotherwisefully advised in thepremises.
Petitionerwasinitially detained by lmmigration and Customs Enforcement(çC	1CE'	')at
Krom e Service Processing Center in M iam i,Florida on October 27,2025.1CE then relocated
Petitioner to the Florence Staging Facility in Florence, Arizona,where he remained from
N ovember 17,2025,to December 3,2025.Petitioner is currently being detained at the Eloy
FederalCenterFacility in Eloy,A rizona.
Case 2:26-cv-01379-AMM--ASB Document 10 Filed 02/17/26 Page 1 of 3

The Supreme Courthas interpreted 28 U.S.C.j 2441(a) to mean that couz'	ts have
jurisdiction to grantwritsofhabeascorpuswhen the petition hasbeen filed Ssin the districtof
confinement.'	'Rumsfeldv.Padilla,542 U.S.426,446-47(2004).Theproperrespondentinsuch
cases is the çsim m ediate custodian,''the person lswith the ability to produce the prisoner'sbody
beforethehabeascourt.''Id Thisisthecaseforhabeaspetitionsfiled by immigration detaineesas
well.Trump v.JG.G.,604U.S.670,672(2025).
Itisundisputed thatthe districtofconfnem entatthetim e Petitionerfiled his Com plaint
wastheDistzictofArizona.Petitionernotesthathehassincebeen transferredtoacontractfacility
in Eloy,Arizona.He argues thatbecause he isbeing housed ata non-federalfacility,the local
warden isunableto releasehim withoutICE'Sauthorization,and thustheGdinzmediate custodian''
istheofficiallocatedatIfromeinM iami,Florida.(E.C.F.No.7at3)(citingM asingenev,M artin,
424F.Supp.3d 1298,1302(S.	D.Fla.2020)).
In M asingene,however,this Courtalso noted thatçswhen a federalimm igrantdetainee is
housed in a contractfacility,the federalofficialcharged with overseeing the detainees in that
facility is more akin to the tim mediate custodian'...than a non-federalw arden.''M ansingene,
424 F.Supp.3d at 1302.Petitioner does notprovide the Coul'twith evidence thatthe Krom e
Service Processing Centerin M iami,nor any individualsem ployed there,have cfmtroloverthe
contractfacility in Eloy,Arizona.Rather,Respondentsstatethatthe facility in Eloy is overseen
bythe1CE PhoenixField Office.(ECFNo.9at4;ECFNo.9-1at!2).
In any event,itisuncontestedthatPetitionerisconfined outsidethisDistrict.Assuch,this
Courtlacksjurisdictiontohearthiscase.SeePadilla,542 U.S.at443;Trump,604 U.S.at672.
A ccordingly,itis
Case 2:26-cv-01379-AMM--ASB Document 10 Filed 02/17/26 Page 2 of 3

A DJUD G ED that the G overnnnent's M otion to Transfer V enue is G R AN TED and the
case ishereby transferredto theDistrictofArizonaasrequestedby the Governm ent.TheClerk of
Courtisdirected to transferthecaseto theUnited StatesDistrictCourtfortheDistrictofArizona
forallfurtherproceedings.
1
17	* o	f	F	e	b	r	u	a	r	y2	0	2	6	.	DONEANDORDE	RE	Di	nC	h	a	mb	e	r	s	a	t	Mi	a	mi	, Florida,this
.-e
F 'E A . OREN O
' ED STA TES D ISTRICT JU D GE
Copiesfulmished to:
CounselofRecord
3
Case 2:26-cv-01379-AMM--ASB Document 10 Filed 02/17/26 Page 3 of 3