Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
JOSE ROSARIO GOMEZ
GALLARDO,
Petitioner,
vs.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, et
al.,
Respondents.
0:26-CV-720
ORDER
Three days ago, the Court entered an order directing the Clerk of the
Court to immediately1 transfer this case to the Western District of Texas, based
on the petitioner's admission that he was being detained at the ERO El Paso
Camp East Montana in El Paso, Texas, when the petitioner was filed. Filing 7
1 The Court is aware of the Eighth Circuit's instruction that in transfer cases, the better
procedure is to hold up the transfer for a reasonable time pending a possible petition for
reconsideration or review. In re Nine Mile Ltd., 673 F.2d 242, 243 (8th Cir. 1982). That is a
prudent rule. The Court nonetheless ordered the clerk to transfer the file immediately in this
case, based on a countervailing prudential consideration—when the court believes (as is the
case here) that a petitioner is being detained unlawfully and is likely to be released, and (as
is the case here) that the transfer is clearly correct, then delaying the transfer also means
delaying release. The habeas statute commands proceeding with alacrity, see 28 U.S.C. §
2243, and it would make little sense when a statute commands a three-day response time to
extend that period by holding the case pending an unlikely review. The unusual
circumstances of this case do not persuade the Court that in the mine run of habeas cases,
immediate transfer where the petitioner is indisputably in another state at the time of filing
isn't still the best course of action.
CASE 0:26-cv-00720-JMG-SGE Doc. 11 Filed 02/02/26 Page 1 of 4

at 1 (citing Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670, 672 (2025); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542
U.S. 426, 443 (2004)). Indeed, the government expressly asked the Court to
transfer the case. Filing 6 at 1.
A lot can change in three days. Evidently, the petitioner has been moved
back to Minnesota. See filing 10-1. Based on that fact, the petitioner has asked
the Court to reconsider its transfer of the case. Filing 10.
But the Court has no authority to claw back a case that's already been
transferred. It's well-established that a transferor court loses jurisdiction over
a case once transfer has occurred. See In re Flight Transp. Corp. Sec. Litig.,
764 F.2d 515, 516 (8th Cir. 1985); see also Integrated Health Servs. of Cliff
Manor, Inc. v. THCI Co., LLC, 417 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 2005); Midwest
Motor Exp., Inc. v. Cent. States Se., 70 F.3d 1014, 1016 (8th Cir. 1995); Nine
Mile, 673 F.2d at 243. The receipt of the file in the transferee court is the event
that signals the end of jurisdiction in the transferor court. Integrated Health,
417 F.3d at 957; Midwest Motor, 70 F.3d at 1016; see also Def. Distributed v.
Platkin, 55 F.4th 486, 492 (5th Cir. 2022). And in this case, the file has been
received in the Western District of Texas. See filing 9.
The Court has considered whether it should direct the Clerk of the Court
to ask for the case file back, as contemplated by the Eighth Circuit in Nine
Mile, 673 F.2d at 244 n.5, and the Fifth Circuit in Platkin, 55 F.4th at 496. But
the Court isn't convinced it has a basis to do so—after all, this case wasn't
improperly transferred. The Western District of Texas was plainly the only
proper forum when the case was transferred, see Padilla, 542 U.S. at 446, and
remains a proper forum despite the subsequent transfer, see Ex parte Endo,
323 U.S. 283, 305-06 (1944). The Court didn't err in transferring the case, and
the petitioner doesn't argue that it did. This case can only return to Minnesota
if a judge in the Western District of Texas gives it back.
CASE 0:26-cv-00720-JMG-SGE Doc. 11 Filed 02/02/26 Page 2 of 4

That doesn't leave the petitioner without options. Of course, he could
litigate his claim in the Western District of Texas. He could also promptly move
the Western District of Texas to transfer the case back. Or, he could ask the
Western District of Texas to dismiss his petition there without prejudice, and
file a new petition in Minnesota.2
Finally, a word about the government's conduct. The Court has been
routinely transferring cases where the petitioner was out-of-state when the
petition was filed, based on clearly articulated Supreme Court precedent. See
Padilla, 542 U.S. at 446. But if the government is going to frustrate judicial
review by moving detainees around the country repeatedly, then different rules
apply. See Padilla, 542 U.S. at 454 (Kennedy, J., concurring). And if the
government's lawyers are going to request relief from the Court premised on
factual contentions without evidentiary support, then other considerations
apply. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b)(3).
The Court will, in future cases, require a request for transfer to be
supported by verified evidence of the petitioner's location at the time of the
request. In this case, the Court will require the government to account for the
representations made in its response to the petitioner. See filing 6.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. The petitioner's motion to reconsider (filing 10) is denied.
2 Should the case be transferred back to Minnesota, or a new case opened in Minnesota, the
petitioner's counsel should inform chambers so that the case can be properly assigned
pursuant to this Court's rules for the assignment of related civil cases.
CASE 0:26-cv-00720-JMG-SGE Doc. 11 Filed 02/02/26 Page 3 of 4

2. On or before February 6, 2026, the government shall file a
statement or other evidence, verified as provided in 28
U.S.C. § 1746, detailing the dates and times of the
petitioner's transportation since his detention, and
explaining the reasons for such transportation.
Dated this 2nd day of February, 2026.
BY THE COURT:
John M. Gerrard
Senior United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-00720-JMG-SGE Doc. 11 Filed 02/02/26 Page 4 of 4