govinfo:USCOURTS-okwd-5_26-cv-01340-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 
 
BALWINDER SINGH, ) 
 ) 
 Petitioner, ) 
 ) 
v. ) Case No. CIV-26-1340-G 
 ) 
CHRIS GANTT, Warden of Cimarron ) 
Correctional Facility, et al., ) 
 ) 
 Respondents.1 ) 
ORDER 
Now before the Court is Petitioner Balwinder Singh’s Motion (Doc. No. 4), seeking 
transfer of this matter to the Eastern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 
Petitioner, appearing through counsel, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 
(“Petition,” Doc. No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging Petitioner’s detention 
by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). At the time the Petition was filed, 
Petitioner was in custody at the Cimarron Correctional Facility in Cushing, Oklahoma. Pet. 
at 4. 
In his Motion, Petitioner states that he was transferred by ICE to the Central Valley 
Annex in McFarland, California, after he filed the Petition. See Pet’r’s Mot. at 2. 
McFarland, California, is located in Kern County, California, which lies within the 
territorial jurisdiction of the Eastern District of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 84(b). 
 
1 Chris Gantt, the current Warden of the Cimarron Correctional Facility , is hereby 
substituted as respondent for Scarlet Grant pursuant to Rules 25(d) and 81(a)(4) of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

2 
“[T]he general rule for core habeas petitions challenging present physical 
confinement” is that “jurisdiction lies only in one district: the district of confinement.” 
Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004). For “core challenges” such as Petitioner’s, 
“the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the 
prisoner is being held.” Id. at 435 (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, when 
“a § 224 1 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. 
Because Petitioner was confined within this judicial district at the time the Petition 
was filed, Petitioner “properly file[d] a petition” in the Western District of Oklahoma 
“naming [his] immediate custodian.” See id. at 441; Pet. at 4; Pet’r’s Mot. at 1-2. 
ICE’s subsequent transfer of Petitioner does not render the Petition improper 
because a n “important but limited” exception to the default rule applies “when the 
Government moves a habeas petitioner after [he] properly files a petition naming [his] 
immediate custodian.” See Padilla, 542 U.S. at 441. In such a case, “the District Court 
retains jurisdiction and may direct the writ to any respondent within its jurisdiction who 
has legal authority to effectuate the prisoner’s release.” Id. Because “ICE trans ferred 
Petitioner from Oklahoma to [the] Central Valley Annex in McFarland, California,” after 
the Petition was properly filed, Pet’r’s Mot. at 2, the Court is not divested of jurisdiction 
over this matter by Petitioner’s present confinement outside the Western District of 
Oklahoma, see Padilla, 542 U.S. at 441 & n.14. 

3 
While acknowledging that this Court had and continues to have jurisdiction over 
this matter, Petitioner requests transfer of the matter to the Eastern District of California 
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). According to § 1404: 
For 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 or to any district or division to which all 
parties have consented. 
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Petitioner argues that transfer serves the interest of justice because 
this matter is in its early stages and the identified respondents have not been ordered to file 
an answer or otherwise respond to the Petition. See Pet’r’s Mot. at 2-3. Petitioner further 
notes that the Eastern District of California now has the “most substantial connection to 
Petitioner’s current detention” and that disposition of the Petition will necessarily involve 
officials who are located in the Eastern District of California. See id. at 3. 
 Because Petitioner is now detained within the Eastern District of California, he 
could have brought this habeas corpus challenge in that District. See Ramirez v. Barr, No. 
CIV-20-1230-G, 2020 WL 8268566, at *2 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 9, 2020) (R. & R.), adopted, 
2021 WL 262047 (W.D. Okla. Jan. 26, 2021); see also Padilla, 542 U.S. at 443 , 447 . 
Having considered Petitioner’s request and the relevant record , the Court finds that it is 
“‘in the interest of justice ’ to transfer this action to that district rather than to dismiss the 
Petition.” Ramirez, 2020 WL 8268566, at *2 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)) ; see also 
Thakur v. Grant, No. CIV-26-1395-J (W.D. Okla. June 16, 2026) (Order). The Clerk of 
Court is DIRECTED to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Eastern 
District of California. 

4 
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of June, 2026. 
 

Passage view · GavelSight