HASSAN v. NOEM et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
MOHAMED HASSAN, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	1:25CV802
)
KRISTI NOEM, et al., 	)
Secretary of the Department 	)
of Homeland Security (“DHS”), 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
On September 11, 2025, the Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge was filed and notice was served on the parties in
accordance 	with 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	636(b). 	(Docs. 	2, 	3.) 	Petitioner
objected to the Recommendation. 	(Doc. 4.)
The court has reviewed the portions of the Magistrate Judge’s
report 	to 	which 	objection 	was 	made 	and 	has 	made 	a 	de 	novo
determination 	in 	accord 	with 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge’s 	report. 	The
court finds that the objections do not alter the substance of the
Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation, and the court therefore adopts
the Recommendation.
In his objections, Petitioner advances two arguments for why
he 	contends 	the 	Magistrate 	Judge 	erred 	in 	concluding 	that 	the
present district is not the proper venue for the petition. 	First,
he 	argues 	that 	“traditional 	venue 	principles” 	as 	“articulated 	in
Braden 	v. 	30th 	Judicial 	Circuit 	Court 	of 	Kentucky, 	410 	U.S. 	484
Case 1:25-cv-00802-TDS-LPA Document 5 Filed 01/14/26 Page 1 of 4

2
(1973), and reinforced by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e), establish the Middle
District 	of 	North 	Carolina 	(‘MDNC’) 	as 	the 	appropriate 	forum.”
(Doc. 4 at 1-2, 3-5.) 	But the federal habeas statute has its own
venue provision, which requires that the petition be filed in the
jurisdiction 	of 	custody. 	28 	U.S.C. 	§ 	2241(a) 	(“Writs 	of 	habeas
corpus 	may 	be 	granted 	by 	the 	Supreme 	Court, 	any 	justice 	thereof,
the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective
jurisdictions.”) 	As 	the 	Recommendation 	correctly 	notes, 	courts,
including 	the 	United 	States 	Court 	of 	Appeals 	for 	the 	Fourth
Circuit, interpret this provision to require that petitions under
§ 	2241 	be 	filed 	in 	the 	judicial 	district 	where 	a 	petitioner 	is
confined 	at 	the 	time 	of 	filing. 	Kanai 	v. 	McHugh, 	638 	F.3d 	251,
255 	(4th 	Cir. 	2011) 	(“A 	habeas 	petitioner 	who 	is 	physically
confined 	must 	name 	this 	‘immediate 	custodian’ 	as 	the 	habeas
respondent, and must file the habeas petition in the ‘district of
confinement.’”) (citing Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 446-47
(2004)).
Moreover, Braden has been limited to its facts. 	See Padilla,
542 	U.S. 	at 	438 	(“Under 	Braden, 	then, 	a 	habeas 	petitioner 	who
challenges 	a 	form 	of 	‘custody’ 	other 	than 	present 	physical
confinement 	may 	name 	as 	respondent 	the 	entity 	or 	person 	who
exercises legal control with respect to the challenged ‘custody.’
But 	nothing 	in 	Braden 	supports 	departing 	from 	the 	immediate
custodian rule in the traditional context of challenges to present
Case 1:25-cv-00802-TDS-LPA Document 5 Filed 01/14/26 Page 2 of 4

3
physical 	confinement.”) 	(citations 	omitted). 	Even 	after 	Braden
and as noted above, the Fourth Circuit has reiterated the ordinary
rule for habeas filings. 	See Kanai, 638 F.3d at 255.
Second, 	Petitioner 	argues 	that 	the 	“unknown 	custodian
exception” 	alternatively 	applies. 	(Doc. 	4 	at 	2, 	5-6.) 	It 	does
not. 	To advance this argument, Petitioner relies on Suri v. Trump,
No. 	25-1560, 	2025 	WL 	1806692, 	___ 	F.4th 	___ 	(4th 	Cir. 	July 	1,
2025), 	where 	the 	court 	excused 	the 	petitioner 	from 	filing 	his
action in the district of confinement because the record indicated
that 	the 	government 	took 	steps 	to 	evade 	identification 	of 	the
location 	where 	the 	petitioner 	was 	being 	held 	and 	the 	identity 	of
the 	custodian. 	Here, 	by 	contrast, 	Petitioner 	was 	in 	the 	custody
of 	the 	Defendants 	at 	the 	Folkston 	ICE 	Processing 	Center 	in
Folkston, Georgia, at the time of the filing of his petition. 	(See
Doc. 1 at 3.) 	He has by all appearances remained there for several
months while deportation proceedings (at which he was represented
by 	counsel) 	have 	occurred. 	(See 	Doc. 	4-1 	at 	4.) 	There 	is 	no
allegation that the Government transferred him there in an effort
to 	frustrate 	the 	filing 	of 	a 	habeas 	petition 	or 	has 	taken 	any
action 	to 	obscure 	the 	identity 	of 	the 	custodian. 	For 	these
reasons, the proper venue for habeas jurisdiction is the district
of 	confinement, 	which, 	as 	of 	the 	last 	indication 	on 	this 	record,
is the Southern District of Georgia. 	For these reasons,
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without
Case 1:25-cv-00802-TDS-LPA Document 5 Filed 01/14/26 Page 3 of 4

4
prejudice 	to 	it 	being 	re-filed 	in 	Petitioner’s 	district 	of
confinement at the time of re-filing.
/s/ 	Thomas D. Schroeder
United States District Judge
January 14, 2026
Case 1:25-cv-00802-TDS-LPA Document 5 Filed 01/14/26 Page 4 of 4