Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jeremy C.,
Petitioner,
v.
Pamela Bondi, Attorney General; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security; Todd M. Lyons,
Acting Director of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; and David
Easterwood, Acting Director, St. Paul
Field Office Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondents.
Civ. No. 26-541 (PAM/SGE)
ORDER
Petitioner Jeremy C., a citizen of Venezuela, was detained by Immigration and
Customs Enforcement on January 15, 2026. His habeas petition is clear that Petitioner has
been detained outside of Minnesota and indicates that he may be detained in Texas. (See
Pet. (Docket No. 1) at 18 (requesting that the Court order Respondents to “[r]eturn
Petitioner to Minnesota”), ¶ 21.) Petitioner brings this habeas action seeking release or, in
the alternative, a bond hearing.
Federal district courts are authorized to grant habeas relief only “within their
respective jurisdictions.” 	28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). 	“[F]or 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). 	None of Petitioner’s
proffered justifications for filing this action in Minnesota is adequate. 	(See Pet. ¶¶ 5–.)
CASE 0:26-cv-00541-PAM-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 2

2
The general venue statute for civil actions, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, does not govern habeas
actions, see Schlanger v. Seamans, 401 U.S. 487, 490 n.4 (1971). Petitioner’s invocation
of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 as a basis for the Court’s jurisdiction makes even less sense, as
Petitioner is not “a person 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.”
Had Petitioner or his attorney stated where Petitioner is currently being detained,
then the Court would transfer this matter to that district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 and
28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Because he has not, the Court dismisses this action without prejudice
for lack of jurisdiction. 	Petitioner, of course, may refile this action in the appropriate
venue.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED
without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Dated: February 2, 2026 	s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson
United States District Court Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00541-PAM-SGE Doc. 6 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 2