Vega Hernandez v. Nessinger et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
ADIEL ERNESTO VEGA
HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
MICHAEL NESSINGER,
et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
C.A. No. 1:26-cv-00657-MSM-PAS
ORDER
Before the Court are the Respondents’ Motion to Transfer this habeas case to
the Western District of Louisiana (ECF No. 4) and the Petitioner, Adiel Ernesto Vega
Hernandez’s, Emergency Motion to Transfer Petitioner Back to Rhode Island (ECF
No. 7). 	The Court concludes that it has jurisdiction over the Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1) and that the Petitioner should be returned to this District
while it is adjudicated.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) arrested the Petitioner in
Massachusetts on or about September 6, 2026, and held him at the Wyatt Detention
Facility. 	(ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 18, 21.) 	His immigration counsel visited him there on
September 11 and identified herself as his attorney to ICE and Wyatt staff. (ECF No.
7-1 at 3-4.) On September 17, the Petitioner departed Hanscom Field on an ICE flight
at 11:11 a.m. and landed in Alexandria, Louisiana, at 1:15 p.m. (ECF No. 4 ¶ 6.) At
approximately 10:00 p.m. that night, ICE’s Online Detainee Locator System still
Case 1:26-cv-00657-MSM-RLA Document 8 Filed 10/08/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
listed his location as Wyatt. (ECF No. 7-1 at 4.) The Petition was filed at 6:26 a.m.
on September 18. 	(ECF No. 1.) 	Counsel received no notice of the transfer and first
learned that the Petitioner was at the Pine Prairie ICE Processing Center form the
locator at approximately 4:00 p.m. on September 18. (ECF No. 7-1 at 4.) According
to the Respondents, the locator reflects a transfer only after the detainee has been
processed into the new facility. (ECF No. 4 ¶ 4.)
Jurisdiction over a habeas petition challenging present physical confinement
ordinarily lies only in the district of confinement.
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426,
443 (2004). But when “a prisoner is held in an undisclosed location by an unknown
custodian, 	it 	is 	impossible 	to 	apply 	the 	immediate 	custodian 	and 	district 	of
confinement rules.”
Id. at 450 n.18;
see also Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 696 (1st
Cir. 2000). 	In those circumstances, jurisdiction lies in the petitioner’s last-known
location, judged by what counsel could have known at filing.
Suri v. Trump, 184 F.4th
260, 277–78 & n.11 (4th Cir. 2026);
Kariuki v. Nessinger, No. 1:26-cv-00674-MSM-
AEM, 2026 WL 2883548 (D.R.I. Sept. 25, 2026);
Gavarete Ramirez v. Nessinger, No.
1:26-cv-00259-MRD-AEM (D.R.I. May 14, 2026).
That exception applies here. When the Petition was filed, the only information
available to counsel, including ICE’s own locator, placed the Petitioner at Wyatt. The
Respondents do not contend that the Petitioner’s counsel could have learned where
he was, and they have not identified his immediate custodian at that time. That the
Petitioner had already landed in Louisiana does not change the result, because the
inquiry turns on what counsel could have known, not on where the Petitioner actually
Case 1:26-cv-00657-MSM-RLA Document 8 Filed 10/08/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
was.
	See Suri, 184 F.4th at 272, 277 & n.11 (applying the exception where the
petition was filed after the petitioner had landed in Louisiana).
The Court may order the Petitioner’s return to facilitate its adjudication of the
Petition.
See Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382, 394–95, 402–03 (2d Cir. 2025); 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1651(a), 2243. 	Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Respondents’ Motion to
Transfer (ECF No. 4) and GRANTS the Petitioner’s Emergency Motion (ECF No. 7).
The Respondents are ORDERED to return the Petitioner to ICE custody within the
District of Rhode Island no later than October 15, 2026, and to file a notice confirming
his location within one (1) day of his return. Pending further Order of this Court, the
Respondents shall not remove the Petitioner from the United States or transfer him
to any location other than this District. 	The Court does not reach the merits of the
Petition, and the Respondents’ response shall be due by October 15, 2026.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
Mary S. McElroy
United States District Judge
October 8, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-00657-MSM-RLA Document 8 Filed 10/08/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>