Meza Rangel v. Lyons et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JUAN MEZA RANGEL, 	§
§
Petitioner, 	§
§
V. 	§ 	No. 3:26-cv-1136-B-BN
§
TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director of 	§
US ICE, ET AL., 	§
§
Respondents. 	§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE
Petitioner Juan Meza Rangel, currently detained by U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Bluebonnet Detention Facility in Anson, Texas,
filed, with the assistance of counsel and in the Dallas Division of this district, an
application for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Dkt. No. 1.
Petitioner paid the applicable filing fee.
And Senior United States District Judge Jane J. Boyle referred thiAs matter
to the undersigned United States magistrate judge for pretrial management under
28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a standing order of reference.
Petitioner asserts that venue is proper in Dallas “because Respondents are
officers, employees, or agencies of the United States and a substantial part of the
events or omissions giving rise to Petitioner’s claims occurred in this District.” Dkt.
No. 1, ¶ 6.
And, like Dallas, Anson – where Petitioner was physically confined when the
habeas application was filed – is in the Northern District of Texas, but Anson is also
Case 1:26-cv-00171-H Document 4 Filed 04/10/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

- 2 -
within Jones County, which is in the Abilene Division of this district. See 28 U.S.C. §
124(a)(3).
“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, Civ. A. No. 20-1093, 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, “[i]n challenges to present physical confinement,” the United States
Supreme Court has “reaffirm[ed] that the immediate custodian, not a supervisory
official who exercises legal control, is the proper respondent.” Padilla, 542 U.S. at
439-40 (further noting that, “[i]f the ‘legal control’ test applied to physical-custody
challenges, a convicted prisoner would be able to name the State or the Attorney
General as a respondent to a § 2241 petition” but, “[a]s the statutory language,
established practice, and our precedent demonstrate, that is not the case”).
The undersigned’s survey of recent immigration habeas cases, undertaken in
a similarly postured action, revealed that “the immediate-custodian rule is alive and
well.” Aguilar v. Johnson, No. 3:25-cv-1904-K-BN, 2025 WL 2099201, at *1-*2 (N.D.
Tex. July 25, 2025) (collecting cases).
And, so, consistent with the record and the established immediate-custodian
rule that applies to this proceeding, venue is not proper in the Dallas Division of this
district.
Case 1:26-cv-00171-H Document 4 Filed 04/10/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

- 3 -
The Court may transfer a case filed in the wrong district or division “to any
district or division in which it could have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a); see also
id. § 1631; Middlebrooks v. Smith, 735 F.2d 431, 432 (11th Cir. 1984) (“Section 1631
is analogous in operation to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1406(a).”).
The Court may raise this issue sua sponte. See Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp.,
886 F.2d 758, 761 (5th Cir. 1989).
And a magistrate judge may properly order that a case be transferred to
another federal district or another division of the same court as a nondispositive
matter under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). Cf. Franco v. Mabe Trucking Co., 3 F.4th 788
(5th Cir. 2021) (affirming order by magistrate judge, on pretrial management
reference, transferring case under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 (but labeled by judge as 28 U.S.C.
§ 1406(a)) to another district for want of personal jurisdiction).
And, so, (1) because Petitioner was physically detained at an ICE facility in
Jones County, in the Abilene Division of this judicial district, when this case was filed
and (2) considering the nature of the habeas claims, the Court will immediately
transfer this habeas action to the Abilene Division of the Northern District of Texas
under Sections 1406(a) and 1631.
SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 10, 2026
_________________________________________
DAVID L. HORAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-00171-H Document 4 Filed 04/10/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>