Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Jose R.,
Petitioner,
v.
Jerome Kramer, Sheriff Lincoln County Det
C; Todd M. Lyons, Director ICE; Markwayne
Mullin, Sec. USCIS; and US Department of
Homeland Sec & Customs,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-2489 (ECT/DJF)
REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Jose R. is an immigration detainee currently being held in custody at a facility
in Nebraska. This matter is before the Court on his petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No.
1) (“Petition”), which challenges both the legality and the conditions of his ongoing detention.
With exceptions that are not relevant to this case, the proper venue for the filing of a habeas petition
is the federal judicial district in which the petitioner is being confined. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a)
(“Writs of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district
courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions.”); Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S.
426, 443 (2004). There is no obvious reason why Jose could not have sought habeas relief in the
United States District Court for the District of Nebraska, and his filing in this District was almost
certainly an unintended error.1
1 Jose was previously convicted of a criminal offense in Minnesota state court, see State of
Minnesota v. Jose R., No. A24-1150, 2026 WL 570611 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2026). It appears
he attempted to file his habeas petition in Minnesota state court (see ECF No. 1-3), perhaps
believing that because the criminal proceeding had occurred there, his habeas petition should also
be filed there. The state court subsequently forwarded the Petition to this District (see ECF No. 1-
4).
CASE 0:26-cv-02489-ECT-DJF Doc. 2 Filed 05/06/26 Page 1 of 3

2
When a case is filed in the wrong district court, the court may dismiss the case or, “if it be
in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been
brought.” 	28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). 	The Court has conducted a preliminary review of the habeas
petition and concludes that transfer of the petition would not be in the interest of justice. To the
extent Jose challenges the legality of his confinement, there is substantial reason to believe he is
subject to mandatory detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) for the duration of the removal
proceedings now ongoing against him. See Banyee v. Garland, 115 F.4th 928, 931-33 (8th Cir.
2024) (foreclosing due process claims premised on length of custody pursuant to § 1226(c)); State
of Minnesota v. Jose R., No. A24-1150, 2026 WL 570611 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2026)
(appellate decision regarding Jose’s conviction for aiding and abetting first degree sale of more
than 17 grams of methamphetamine); (ECF No. 1 at 5, stating immigration appeal of “negative
decision by the [immigration judge] is still ongoing”). To the extent Jose challenges the conditions
of his confinement, such claims must be brought through a separate non-habeas civil proceeding,
see Spencer v. Haynes, 774 F.3d 467, 469 (8th Cir. 2014), and would therefore be subject to
dismissal if transferred to the District of Nebraska as part of this habeas corpus proceeding.
Accordingly, the Court recommends that this matter be dismissed without prejudice
pursuant to Section 1406(a). Such a dismissal will not preclude Jose from seeking habeas relief
or relief from the conditions of his confinement in the District of Nebraska, the more appropriate
district for either such claim.
CASE 0:26-cv-02489-ECT-DJF Doc. 2 Filed 05/06/26 Page 2 of 3

3
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Dated: May 6, 2026 	s/ Dulce J. Foster
Dulce J. Foster
United States Magistrate Judge
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District
Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate
judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a copy” of the
Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being
served a copy of the objections. 	See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). 	All objections and responses must
comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-02489-ECT-DJF Doc. 2 Filed 05/06/26 Page 3 of 3