Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-2657 Section "R" (1)
November 7, 2001
ORDER AND REASONS
This case arises out of the Immigration and Naturalization Services' (INS) detention of petitioner Gabino Sanchez-Quintana, pending the conclusion of his removal proceedings. Before the Court is Government's Motion to Dismiss petitioner's complaint for lack of jurisdiction, or in the alternative, to Transfer the case to the Western District of Louisiana. For the following reasons, the Court grants the Government's motion to transfer.
I. BACKGROUND
On November 28, 2000, the INS office in New Orleans, Louisiana initiated removal proceedings against petitioner Gabino Sanchez-Quintana. The INS detained petitioner without bond pending the final determination of his deportation status, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) (1997) and the Immigration and Nationality Act, § 236(c). Petitioner is currently being held at the Federal Detention Center, located in Oakdale, Louisiana, in the Western District of Louisiana.
On August 31, 2001, petitioner filed a pro se Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the Eastern District of Louisiana, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, challenging the constitutionality of the statutes authorizing his detention without the benefit of an individualized bond hearing. (Compl. at 1.) Petitioner requested that the Court: (1) issue a permanent injunction declaring 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) and INA § 236(c) unconstitutional, (2) issue an order directing an immediate hearing on petitioner's suitability for bail, and (3) award petitioner costs for this action. (Compl. at 4.)
The Government filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of jurisdiction, or in the alternative, to transfer the case to the Western District of Louisiana. The arguments in favor of dismissal or transfer are premised on the Government's argument that petitioner's complaint amounts to a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
II. DISCUSSION
Section 2241(c)(3) of Title 28 authorizes any person to claim in federal court that he or she is being held "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws . . . of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). In order to entertain jurisdiction over a Section 2241 habeas petition, the federal district court must have jurisdiction over the petitioner or his custodian when the petition is filed. United States v. Cabor, 905 F.2d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1990) (citing Blau v. United States, 566 F.2d 526, 527 (5th Cir. 1978)); McClure v. Hopper, 577 F.2d 938, 939-40 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1077, 99 S. Ct. 854 (1979). Accordingly, a petitioner must file his habeas petition in the federal district in which he is physically present. Id.
To determine whether a complaint should be construed as a habeas petition, the Court must assess whether the petition challenges the fact or duration of confinement or merely the conditions of confinement. See Spina v. Aaron, 821 F.2d 1126, 1128 (5th Cir. 1987). A complaint that challenges the fact or duration of the petitioner's confinement must be construed as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See id.; Johnson v. Hardy, 601 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1979) ( per curium). Neither the label the Petitioner places on the complaint, nor the nature of the relief sought is binding upon the court's determination. See Johnson v. Hardy, 601 F.2d 172, 174 (5th Cir. 1979); see also Williams v. Dallas County Comm'rs, 689 F.2d 1213, 1214 (5th Cir. 1982) (court is not bound solely by the nature of the relief sought when determining whether a civil rights complaint may be characterized as a habeas petition); Coronado v. United States Bd. of Parole, 540 F.2d 216, 217 (5th Cir. 1976) (prisoner's pro se complaint requesting declaratory judgment construed as habeas petition).
In this case, the parties disagree as to the nature of the complaint. The Government asserts that the petition must be construed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Petitioner, however, argues that his complaint is in fact a request for declaratory judgment, and the Court therefore has jurisdiction over this matter under 42 U.S.C. § 2201. In support of his position, the petitioner relies on the fact that his initial complaint did not seek an order for release from INS custody. ( See Pet'r Reply Opp'n Government's Response and Request for Transfer, at 2.)
Here, it is clear from the face of his complaint that petitioner is challenging the constitutionality of his current detention. Similar challenges to the constitutionality of Section 236(c) have been filed as habeas petitions in other federal district courts. See Szeto v. Rena, 2000 WL 630869 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (granting petition for habeas corpus on constitutionality of § 236(c)); see also Okeke v. Pasquarell, 80 F. Supp.2d 635 (N.D. Tex. 2000) (challenging the constitutionality of § 236(c) in a § 2241 habeas petition); Koita v. Reno, 113 F. Supp.2d 737 (M.D. Pa. 2000) (same); Reyes v. Underdown, 73 F. Supp.2d 653 (W.D. La. 1999) (same). Indeed, in Szeto, the petitioner filed a habeas petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 236(c) and requested relief nearly identical to that sought in this case. 2000 WL 63089, at 2. That petitioner here seeks something less than complete release from confinement does not preclude this Court from construing the complaint as a habeas petition.
The Court finds that petitioner's complaint should be construed as a habeas petition. Jurisdiction, therefore, vests in the federal district in which the petitioner was physically present on the date the petition was filed. It is undisputed that at that time, petitioner was being held at a federal detention center located in the Western District of Louisiana. Accordingly, the Court transfers this case to the Western District of Louisiana.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing reasons, and in the interest of judicial economy, the Court grants the Government's Motion to Transfer this case to the Western District of Louisiana.