Costa v. Warden, Port Isabel Service Processing Center et al

1 / 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BROWNSVILLE DIVISION
ARILSON P. C., §
“Petitioner,” §
§
v. §
WARDEN, PORT ISABEL SERVICE
PROCESSISNG CENTER, et al.,
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-00084
“Respondents.” §
ORDER
Before the Court are Petitioner’s “Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” (Dkt. No. 7)
(“Petition”), Respondents’ “Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Motion to Dismiss”
(Dkt. No. 6) (“MTD”), Petitioner’s “Motion for Temporary Restraining Order” (Dkt. No. 8) (“MTRO”),
Petitioner’s “Motion to Expedite Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” (Dkt. No. 9) (“Motion to
Expedite”), the Magistrate Judge’s “Report and Recommendation to Dismiss Petitioner’s Habeas
Petition” (Dkt. No. 10) (“R&R”), “Petitioner’s Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation” (Dkt. No. 11) (“Objections”), Respondents’ “Response to Petitioner’s Objections to
the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation” (Dkt. No. 12), and Petitioner’s “Emergency Motion
to Maintain Jurisdiction, for Return of Petitioner to this District, or in the alternative, for Immediate
Release” (Dkt. No. 13) (“Emergency Motion”).
The Magistrate Judge recommended this Court (1) deny the Petition (Dkt. No. 7), (2) grant the
MTD (Dkt. No. 6), (3) deny the MTRO (Dkt. No. 8) and Motion to Expedite (Dkt. No. 9) as moot, and
(4) direct the Clerk of Court to close the case. Petitioner filed his objections on March 18, 2026, see Dkt.
No. 11, and Respondents responded to the Objections on March 25, 2026. See Dkt. No. 12. On March 30,
2026, Petitioner filed his Emergency Motion informing the Court that he had been transferred from this
district to a detention facility in Louisiana. Dkt. No. 13 at 1-2.
Despite Petitioner’s transfer to a different facility, the Court finds it maintains jurisdiction over
the Petition. 8 U.S.C. § 2241 grants district courts “the authority to grant writs of habeas corpus ‘within
their respective jurisdictions.” See Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370, 373 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
2241). Thus, a district court has jurisdiction to entertain an alien’s habeas petition under § 2241 if that
United States District Court
Southern District of Texas
ENTERED
April 09, 2026
Nathan Ochsner, Clerk
Case 1:26-cv-00084 Document 14 Filed 04/09/26 in TXSD Page 1 of 2

2 / 2
alien is detained within that court’s district or otherwise filed his habeas petition while detained within the
court’s district. Id. at 374-375; Griffin v. Ebbert, 751 F.3d 288, 290–91 (5th Cir. 2014) (“Jurisdiction
attached on that initial filing for habeas corpus relief, and it was not destroyed by the transfer of petitioner
and accompanying custodial change.”).
Here, the Petition was filed while Petitioner was detained at a facility within this district and
named as respondent the warden of that institution. See Dkt. No. 7. Because these steps properly complied
with habeas procedure, the Court maintains jurisdiction.
Accordingly, as to Petitioner’s request that this Court declare its jurisdiction over the Petition, the
Emergency Motion (Dkt. No. 13) is GRANTED in part. The Emergency Motion (Dkt. No. 13) is
DENIED in part with respect to Petitioner’s other requested relief.
Because it maintains jurisdiction to do so, the Court has reviewed the matter de novo. United
States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir. 1989) (“a district court must engage in de novo review
where a party has objected to a magistrate’s decision). After such review, the Court finds Petitioner’s
objections should be and hereby are OVERRULED. The Court ADOPTS the R&R (Dkt. No. 10).
The Petition (Dkt. No. 7) is DENIED without prejudice and the MTD (Dkt. No. 6) is
GRANTED. Petitioner’s MTRO (Dkt. No. 8) and Motion to Expedite (Dkt. No. 9) are DENIED as moot.
The Clerk of Court is INSTRUCTED to close this case.
SIGNED this April 9, 2026
___________________________________
Rolando Olvera
United States District Judge
Case 1:26-cv-00084 Document 14 Filed 04/09/26 in TXSD Page 2 of 2