govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-1_25-cv-25380-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Miami Division
Case Number: 25-25380-CIV-M ORENO
ALEXANDER HERRERA ACOSTA,
Petitioner,
VS.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; KRISTINOEM , Secretary, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER GM NTING RESPONDENTS' M OTION TO TM NSFER VENUE
THIS CAUSE came before the Coul't upon Respondents' Motion to Transfer Venue (D.E.
4).
THE COURT has considered the motion, the response in opposition, the reply, pertinent
portions of the record, and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
Petitioner was initially detained by lmmigration and Customs Enforcement (çC1CE'') at
Krome Service Processing Center in Miami, Florida on October 27, 2025. 1CE then relocated
Petitioner to the Florence Staging Facility in Florence, Arizona, where he remained from
November 17, 2025, to December 3, 2025. Petitioner is currently being detained at the Eloy
Federal Center Facility in Eloy, Arizona.
Case 1:25-cv-25380-FAM   Document 10   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2026   Page 1 of 3
The Supreme Court hasinterpreted 28 U.S.C. j 2441(a) to mean that couz'ts have
jurisdiction to grant writs of habeas corpus when the petition has been filed Ssin the district of
confinement.'' Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 446-47 (2004). The proper respondent in such
cases is the çsimmediate custodian,'' the person lswith the ability to produce the prisoner's body
before the habeas court.'' Id This is the case for habeas petitions filed by immigration detainees as
well. Trump v. J G.G., 604 U.S. 670, 672 (2025).
It is undisputed that the district of confnement at the time Petitioner filed his Complaint
was the Distzict of Arizona. Petitioner notes that he has since been transferred to a contract facility
in Eloy, Arizona. He argues that because he is being housed at a non-federal facility, the local
warden is unable to release him without ICE'S authorization, and thus the Gdinzmediate custodian''
is the official located at Ifrome in Miami, Florida. (E.C.F. No. 7 at 3) (citing Masingene v, Martin,
424 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1302 (S.D. Fla. 2020)).
In Masingene, however, this Court also noted that çswhen a federal immigrant detainee is
housed in a contract facility, the federal official charged with overseeing the detainees in that
facility is more akin to the timmediate custodian' . . . than a non-federal warden.'' Mansingene,
424 F. Supp. 3d at 1302. Petitioner does not provide the Coul't with evidence that the Krome
Service Processing Center in Miami, nor any individuals employed there, have cfmtrol over the
contract facility in Eloy, Arizona. Rather, Respondents state that the facility in Eloy is overseen
by the 1CE Phoenix Field Office. (ECF No. 9 at 4; ECF No. 9-1 at ! 2).
In any event, it is uncontested that Petitioner is confined outside this District. As such, this
Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case. See Padilla, 542 U.S. at 443; Trump, 604 U.S. at 672.
Accordingly, it is
Case 1:25-cv-25380-FAM   Document 10   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2026   Page 2 of 3
ADJUDGED that the Governnnent's Motion to Transfer Venue is GRANTED and the
case is hereby transferred to the District of Arizona as requested by the Government. The Clerk of
Court is directed to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
for all further proceedings.
1
17* of February 2026.DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this
.-e
F ' E A. ORENO
' 
ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies fulmished to:
Counsel of Record
3
Case 1:25-cv-25380-FAM   Document 10   Entered on FLSD Docket 02/17/2026   Page 3 of 3

Passage view · GavelSight