Background
Madinakhon Khakimova previously won release from immigration detention after the government could not show that removal was reasonably foreseeable. ICE later re-detained her, transferred her to Louisiana, and scheduled removal, prompting a renewed request for a temporary restraining order in the Southern District of California.
Her new filing challenged the legality of the renewed custody and sought to prevent removal to Africa or another third country. By then, however, her immediate custodian and place of confinement were outside California.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied emergency relief for lack of habeas jurisdiction. A new challenge to re-detention must ordinarily be brought against the current custodian in the district of confinement; jurisdiction from the earlier, completed detention challenge did not automatically attach to the new custody episode.
The court ordered Khakimova to explain why the amended petition should not be dismissed or transferred to the appropriate federal court in Louisiana. It expressly noted that emergency relief could be sought there.
Key Takeaways
- A new re-detention can create a new habeas jurisdiction inquiry.
- The proper respondent is generally the detainee’s immediate custodian.
- Transfer outside California can require filing in the new district of confinement.
- Emergency strategy must account for both removal timing and territorial jurisdiction.
Why It Matters
For California practitioners, the ruling highlights the jurisdictional risk created by rapid ICE transfers. Counsel should track the client’s physical location, identify the current custodian, and prepare parallel or immediate filings in the receiving district when necessary.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket