Doe v. Garland

109 F.4th 1188

John DOE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Merrick B. GARLAND, Attorney General; Alejandro N. Mayorkas; Tae Johnson,in his official capacity, Acting Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;Polly Kaiser, in her official capacity, Acting Director for the San FranciscoICE Field Office; Moises Becerra, Respondents-Appellants.

No.23-15361

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Argued and Submitted May 16, 2024 San Francisco, California

Filed July 29, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California James Donato, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 3:22-cv-03759-JD

Jordan Wells (argued), Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area, San Francisco, California, for Petitioner-Appellee.

Shiwon Choe (argued) and Savith Iyengar, Assistant United States Attorneys; Michelle Lo, Civil Division Chief; Ismail J. Ramsey, United States Attorney; United States Department of Justice, Office of the United States Attorney, San Francisco, California; Courtney E. Moran and Erin T. Ryan, Trial Attorneys; William C. Peachey, Director; Brian M. Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General; United States Department of Justice, Civil Division, Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, D.C.; for Respondents-Appellants.

Marc Van Der Hout and Johnny Sinodis, Van Der Hout LLP, San Francisco, California; Trina A. Realmuto, Kristin Macleod-Ball, and Aidan Langston, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, Brookline, Massachusetts; for Amici Curiae The National Immigration Litigation Alliance, Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project, Immigrant Legal Defense, and Asian Americans Advancing Justice-Asian Law Caucus.

Michelle (Minju) Y. Cho, and Bree Bernwanger, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Northern California, San Francisco, California, for Amici Curiae American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, The American Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, and Pangea Legal Services.

Before: Kenneth K. Lee and Daniel A. Bress, Circuit Judges, and Yvette Kane,^* District Judge.

OPINION

KANE, District Judge:

John Doe ("Doe"), an alien detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), brought a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Northern District of California. Doe contested his detention at the Golden State Annex ("GSA"), which is located in the Eastern District of California. Doe named Attorney General Merrick Garland, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security Alejando Mayorkas, then Acting Director for United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") Tae Johnson, and then Acting Director for the San Francisco ICE Field Office Polly Kaiser, as Respondents ("Respondents").¹ The district court denied Respondents' motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds and granted Doe's petition. However, because Doe did not name his immediate custodian, the Facility Administrator (and de facto warden) of GSA as the respondent, and because he filed his complaint outside of the judicial district where he was confined, we hold that the district court erroneously exercised jurisdiction over his petition.

We therefore REVERSE the district court's denial of Respondents' motion to dismiss and REMAND this case to the district court with instructions to VACATE the grant of Doe's petition for writ of habeas corpus.

I. Background

On July 12, 2021, Doe began his detention at GSA pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), which requires that the Attorney General take civil custody of criminal aliens detained pending removal without requiring a showing that the detainees pose a danger to the public or are a flight risk. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Following a prolonged period during which he did not receive a bond hearing, on June 24, 2022, Doe filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He named as Respondents Merrick B. Garland, the Attorney General of the United States; Alejandro Mayorkas, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; Tae Johnson, then Acting Director for United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Polly Kaiser, then Acting Director for the San Francisco ICE Field Office, all in their official capacities. In his petition, Doe requested "that this Court issue a writ of habeas corpus and order his release within fourteen days unless Respondents schedule a hearing before an immigration judge." Doe sought a bond hearing, requesting that the district court order Respondents to establish "by clear and convincing evidence" that he presents a flight risk or danger to the public, and, if Respondents could not meet their burden at said hearing, that an immigration judge order his release "on appropriate conditions of supervision, taking into account his ability to pay a bond."

Respondents moved to dismiss Doe's petition, challenging jurisdiction in the Northern District of California. The district court denied Respondents' motion in a summary order, holding that "[t]he Court has concluded in prior immigration habeas cases that the Northern District of California is an appropriate jurisdiction for petitions filed by aliens detained by the Director of the San Francisco ICE Field Office." On the merits, the district court granted Doe's petition, ordering the government to release Doe from custody or provide him an individualized bond hearing within thirty-one (31) days of the date of the court's order. In accordance with the district court's order, the government scheduled a bond hearing. At that hearing, the immigration judge issued a decision releasing Doe on $7,500 bond and Doe was released from ICE custody. Respondents appeal to this court the orders of the Northern District of California denying their motion to dismiss and granting Doe's habeas petition.

II. Standard of Review

This court has jurisdiction over the district court's decision denying Respondents' motion to dismiss and granting Doe's habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The court reviews jurisdictional questions de novo. United States v. Jeremiah, 493 F.3d 1042, 1044 (9th Cir. 2007); see also Nettles v. Grounds, 830 F.3d 922, 927 (9th Cir. 2016) (reviewing de novo a district court's finding that it lacked jurisdiction over a habeas petition).

III. Analysis

A. Rules Governing § 2241 Petitions

Doe filed his habeas petition in the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The federal habeas statute, § 2241, provides in relevant part that:

[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions. The order of a circuit judge shall be entered in the records of the district court of the district wherein the restraint complained of is had.

28 U.S.C. § 2241(a).

The seminal case interpreting and clarifying the jurisdictional bounds of § 2241 is the United States Supreme Court's decision in Rumsfeld v. Padilla. In Padilla, petitioner Jose Padilla was detained by the United States Department of Defense following President George W. Bush's determination that Padilla was an "enemy combatant" who conspired with Al-Qaeda to perpetuate terror attacks on the United States. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 430, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004). Padilla was detained by federal agents at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport and subsequently transported to New York after agents executed a material witness warrant issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Id. at 430-31, 124 S.Ct. 2711. He moved to vacate the warrant, but while his motion was pending, President Bush ordered Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld to designate Padilla an enemy combatant and take him into military custody. Id. at 431, 124 S.Ct. 2711. Padilla was taken into custody by officials of the United States Department of Defense and transferred to the Consolidated Naval Brig in Charleston, South Carolina. Id. at 432, 124 S.Ct. 2711. His counsel then filed a petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Southern District of New York, naming as respondents President Bush, Secretary Rumsfeld, and Commander of the Consolidated Naval Brig Melanie A. Marr. Id.

In finding that the district court in the Southern District of New York did not have jurisdiction over Padilla's petition, the Supreme Court highlighted several important rules. First, the Court noted that in the federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2242, "[t]he consistent use of the definite article in reference to the custodian indicates that there is generally only one proper respondent to a given prisoner's habeas petition. This custodian, moreover, is 'the person' with the ability to produce the prisoner's body before the habeas court." Id. at 434-35, 124 S.Ct. 2711. The Court next clarified that when a habeas petitioner challenges "present physical confinement," which the Court labeled a "core challenge[ ]," "the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held, not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official." Id. at 435, 124 S.Ct. 2711.² In addition to delineating the proper respondent for core habeas petitions, the Court also explained that "for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement." Id. at 443, 124 S.Ct. 2711. In short, and putting the rules together, "[w]henever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement." Id. at 447, 124 S.Ct. 2711.

The Padilla district of confinement and immediate custodian rules are firmly entrenched in the law of this and other circuits. See Lopez-Marroquin v. Barr, 955 F.3d 759, 760 (...