From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ramirez-Lopez v. Ashcroft

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Jun 4, 2003
No. 3:03-CV 1027-L (N.D. Tex. Jun. 4, 2003)

Opinion

No. 3:03-CV 1027-L.

June 4, 2003.


ORDER OF TRANSFER


While incarcerated in the Rolling Plain Detention Center in Haskell, Texas, petitioner filed the instant action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He lists John Ashcroft, Attorney General of the United States, and Brian Perryman, District Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service, as respondents. In February 2003, petitioner notified the Illinois federal court that he had been transferred to an Oklahoma Detention Center. On March 27, 2003, that court granted him permission to proceed in forma pauperis and appointed attorney Frank Cece, Jr. to represent him. On April 3, 2003, the court transferred the action to this Court.

Since the filing of this action, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) "ceased to exist as an independent agency under the umbrella of the U.S. Department of Justice, and its functions were transferred to the new Department of Homeland Security." See Ahmed v. Department of Homeland Security, 328 F.3d 383, 384 (7th Cir. 2003) (noting that such change occurred on Mar. 1, 2003). Therefore, the named respondents will likely change as the restructuring and reorganization of the INS into the Department of Homeland Security continues. For the moment, the Court will make no change to the named respondents due to the uncertainty concerning the identity of the proper respondent.

When petitioner filed the instant action he was "in custody" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in Haskell, Texas, Haskell County. That county is located in the Northern District of Texas, Abilene Division. See 28 U.S.C. § 124(a)(3). Petitioner is now detained in Oklahoma.

In the Fifth Circuit, a petitioner may properly file his action under § 2241 where he or his custodian is located. See Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370, 373-75 n. 3 (5th Cir. 2001). In addition, the Court judges the relevant jurisdictional facts as of the time petitioner filed this action. Id. at 374 n. 5. Based upon petitioner's place of incarceration when he filed the instant petition, this Court has jurisdiction over this action.

Although the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition, it nevertheless has the discretion to transfer the action to a more convenient forum. Section 1404(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code provides that "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought." Courts may transfer a case sua sponte. Mills v. Beech Aircraft Corp., Inc., 886 F.2d 758, 761 (5th Cir. 1989); Caldwell v. Palmetto State Sav. Bank, 811 F.2d 916, 919 (5th Cir. 1987). They have broad discretion in determining the propriety of a transfer. Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1067 (5th Cir. 1998).

In this instance, petitioner was incarcerated in the Rolling Plain Detention Center when he filed this action. He has since been transferred to Oklahoma. Furthermore, the named respondents are subject to being changed due to the reorganization of the INS into the Department of Homeland Security. In any event, the Abilene Division of this Court can properly exercise jurisdiction over this case. That division appears the more appropriate forum for this action. Petitioner was undoubtedly incarcerated there when he filed this action. As a general rule, the federal courts in the Northern District of Texas transfer § 2241 actions to the division in which the petitioner was incarcerated when he filed his petition. Although petitioner is no longer detained in the Abilene Division, that division is no less inconvenient to petitioner than the Dallas Division. That the "INS case file" may be located in Dallas does not make Dallas a more appropriate forum. Government records and files are easily transferred from one location to another without unduly inconveniencing any party.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby ORDERS that petitioner's original petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is TRANSFERRED to the Abilene Division of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.


Summaries of

Ramirez-Lopez v. Ashcroft

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
Jun 4, 2003
No. 3:03-CV 1027-L (N.D. Tex. Jun. 4, 2003)
Case details for

Ramirez-Lopez v. Ashcroft

Case Details

Full title:RICARDO RAMIREZ-LOPEZ, ID #A-24652187, Petitioner, v. JOHN ASHCROFT, et…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

Date published: Jun 4, 2003

Citations

No. 3:03-CV 1027-L (N.D. Tex. Jun. 4, 2003)