Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOSE MANUEL LOPEZ
ESPINOLA,
V.
Petitioner 	CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-606
(JUDGE MANNION)
PAMELA BONDI, Attorney
General, et al.,
Respondents
MEMORANDUM
Pending before the court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. §2241 . For the reasons stated below, the court will direct that the
matter be transferred to the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania and direct the Clerk of Court to close the case in this
court.
By way of relevant background, 	on 	March 	11, 2026, the petitioner,
through his "next friend" Jennifer Esmeralda Lopez Delgado, filed the instant
action in this district seeking his immediate release from Immigration and
Customs 	Enforcement 	("ICE") 	custody, 	or 	alternatively, 	"to 	enjoin 	[his]
transfer to a facility outside of Pennsylvania and to provide a bond hearing
pending the completion of any immigration proceedings ." (Doc. 1 at 1-2). The
petitioner claims that his detention under 8 U.S.C. §1225(b)(2) is improper
Case 3:26-cv-00606-MEM Document 4 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 4

and violates due process, and that he should be properly detained under 8
U.S.C. §1226(a). Id. at 7-10. Furthermore, he argues that he is not a flight
ri sk nor a danger to society. Id. at 9. The filing fee has been submitted.
District courts are obligated to screen habeas petitions pursuant to
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts. 	See R. 4, 28 U.S.C . foll. §2254 ("The clerk must promptly
forward the petition to a judge under the court's assignment procedure, and
the court must promptly examine it. " ). Rule 4 may be applied in habeas cases
brought under Section 2241. See R. 1(b), 28 U.S.C. foll. §2254 ("The district
court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not
covered by Rule 1(a)) ." ). "[A] district court is authorized to dismiss a [habeas]
petition summarily when it plainly appears from the face of the petition and
any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the
district court." Lonchar v. Thomas , 517 	U.S. 314, 320 	(1996) ; see a/so
McFarlandv. Scott, 512 U.S. 849,856 (1994) ("Federal courts are authorized
to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on
its face. " ).
The proper respondent in a §2241 	petition 	is "the person who has
custody over" the petitioner and who has the power to produce the petitioner
before the court and release him if proper to do so. Rumsfeld v. Padilla , 542
- 2 -
Case 3:26-cv-00606-MEM Document 4 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 4

U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C. §§2242, 2243). Moreover, '"the
court issuing the writ [must] have jurisdiction over the custodian ."' Id. ( quoting
Braden v. 30 th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky. , 410 U.S. 484, 	495 (1973)).
Therefore, the custodian must be within the territorial jurisdiction of the court
issuing the writ. Id. at 445.
The 	petitioner 	is 	currently 	confined 	at 	the 	Moshannon 	Valley
Correctional 	Facility 	("MVCF") 	(a/k/a 	the 	Moshannon 	Valley 	Processing
Center) in Phill ipsburg , Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1 at 1). While the MVCF has an
address in Philipsburg which is located in Centre County within the Middle
District of Pennsylvania, the actual facility is situated in Clearfield County
which is located in the Western District of Pennsylvania. The Un ited States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has agreed that individuals confined at
the MVCF seeking habeas relief must file their petition in the Western District
of Pennsylvania, which is the district having jurisdiction over the petitioner's
custodian . See Tsoukalas v. United States, 215 F. App'x 152 (3d Cir. 2007).
Because the petitioner is detained at the MVCF, which has been recognized
as being in the Western District of Pennsylvania , this court does not have
jurisdiction over the instant habeas petition.
Although this court lacks jurisdiction over the instant petition, it may
transfer the action to another federal court that does have jurisdiction if it is
- 3 -
Case 3:26-cv-00606-MEM Document 4 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 4

in the interest of justice to do so. 	See 28 U.S.C. §1631 . "In determining
whether transfer is 'in the interest of justice,' courts have considered whether
the failure to transfer would prejudice the litigant, whether the litigant filed the
original action in good faith, and other equitable factors." United States v.
Banks, 372 F. App'x 237, 239 (3d Cir. 2010).
In this case, the court finds that it would be in the interest of justice to
transfer this 	action 	to 	the 	Western 	District 	of Pennsylvania. 	Given 	the
confusion of the address of the MVCF and its actual physical location, there
is no indication that the petition was filed in this court in bad faith. Moreover,
there does not appear to be any equitable factors that would weigh against
transferring the action.
For the reasons set forth above, the court will transfer the instant action
to the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
and direct that the case be closed in this district. An appropriate order shall
issue.
tates District Judge
DATE: 	JjtJ/iv
26-606-01
- 4 -
Case 3:26-cv-00606-MEM Document 4 Filed 03/13/26 Page 4 of 4