Perez-Flores v. Plymouth County Correctional Facility, Warden

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Marco L. Perez Flores
v. Civil No. 26-cv-364-JL-AJ
Warden, Plymouth County Correctional Facility
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Self-represented Petitioner Marco L. Perez-Flores, an immigration detainee, filed
an untitled document (Doc. No. 1) in this court which the court has construed as a
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Mr. Perez-
Flores is presently incarcerated at the Plymouth County Correctional Facility in
Plymouth, Massachusetts (“PCCF”) in United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) custody.
The relief the petitioner requests in his Petition arises under § 2241. Accordingly,
he must file his claims in the judicial district where he is currently confined.1 See 28
U.S.C. § 2241; see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004). This court does
not have territorial jurisdiction over PCCF, the petitioner’s current place of confinement,
or its Warden, Petitioner’s immediate custodian. The federal district court with territorial
jurisdiction over the petitioner’s habeas claims is the District of Massachusetts.
When a civil action is filed in a court that lacks jurisdiction, the court must transfer
the action to the judicial district that would have had jurisdiction over the matter at the
1 To the extent Mr. Perez-Flores asserts a claim concerning the conditions of his
confinement at the PFFC, specifically, a denial of access to his legal materials, such
claims are also properly asserted in a civil case brought in the District of Massachusetts.
Case 1:26-cv-00364-JL-AJ Document 2 Filed 05/14/26 Page 1 of 2

2
time the case was filed, unless a transfer is not in the interest of justice. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1631. Nothing in the record here suggests that a transfer is not in the interest of
justice. Accordingly, the district judge should direct the Clerk’s office to transfer this
matter to the District of Massachusetts, pursuant to § 1631.
Any objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within fourteen
days of receipt of this notice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The objection period may
be extended upon motion. Only those issues raised in the written objections “‘are
subject to review in the district court,’” and any issues “‘not preserved by such objection
are precluded on appeal.’” Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno, 842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st
Cir. 2016) (citations omitted).
SO ORDERED.
______________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
May 14, 2026
cc: Marco L. Perez Flores, pro se
Case 1:26-cv-00364-JL-AJ Document 2 Filed 05/14/26 Page 2 of 2