Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Cristian O.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General, United
States Department of Justice; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Director of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and David
Easterwood, Field Office Director, St.
Paul Field Office, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civ No. 26-853 (PAM/LIB)
ORDER
Federal district courts may issue writs of habeas corpus only “within their respective
jurisdictions. 	28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). 	The exercise of jurisdiction in a habeas corpus
proceeding generally requires that “the person who has custody over” the petitioner be
found within the geographic boundaries of the Court. 	28 U.S.C. § 2242; Padilla v.
Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 426, 434–35 (2004). 	Petitioner acknowledges in his habeas petition
that he is no longer being detained in Minnesota, (see Petition (Docket No. 1) ¶ 5), and
therefore his immediate custodian cannot be found in Minnesota, either. Accordingly, this
proceeding should not have been filed in Minnesota.
Petitioner attempts to justify his invocation of the District of Minnesota as a proper
venue to this action by citing 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), which permits litigants suing federal
CASE 0:26-cv-00853-PAM-LIB Doc. 3 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 2

2
officials to bring suit in the district in which the litigant resides. 	But the Supreme Court
concluded long ago that § 1391(e) does not apply to habeas proceedings. See Schlanger v.
Seamans, 401 U.S. 487, 490 n.4 (1971). 	Petitioner’s invocation of 28 U.S.C. § 2241(d),
(see Petition ¶ 23), is even wider of the mark, as Petitioner is not “in custody under the
judgment and sentence of a State court,” and Minnesota is not “a State which contains two
or more Federal judicial districts.”
“The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong
division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to
any district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); see also
28 U.S.C. § 1631 (permitting a district court to transfer proceedings upon a finding of lack
of jurisdiction). 	The Court concludes that the transfer of this matter to the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico, the district where Petitioner is now detained,
is in the interest of justice and will transfer this matter accordingly.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is TRANSFERRED
to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.
Dated: February 2, 2026 	s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00853-PAM-LIB Doc. 3 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 2