Eastern District of New York • 1:26-cv-01169

#1

Feb 27, 2026

PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filing fee $ 5, receipt number ANYEDC-19955957, filed by Christian Daniel Zhunio Malla. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet) (Garzon, John) (Entered: 02/27/2026)

#2

Mar 02, 2026

This attorney case opening filing has been checked for quality control. See the attachment for corrections that were made, if any. (CV) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

#3

Mar 02, 2026

RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Christian Daniel Zhunio Malla (Garzon, John) (Entered: 03/02/2026)

Mar 02, 2026

Case Assigned/Reassigned

Mar 02, 2026

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE by 3/5/2026 why this case should not be transferred to the Eastern District of California. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004) ("[V]enue is proper only in a single district: the district of confinement."); see also Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382, 387 (2d Cir. 2025) (Where petitioner was detained by ICE in Massachusetts and transferred to Vermont, the "District of Vermont [was] likely the proper venue to adjudicate [the] habeas petition because, at the time [it was] filed, [petitioner] was physically in Vermont"). Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 3/2/2026. (PW)

Mar 02, 2026

Case Assigned to Judge Brian M. Cogan. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (CV)

Mar 02, 2026

Order to Show Cause (463)

Mar 24, 2026

Order(Other)

Mar 24, 2026

ORDER. This petition was filed when petitioner was confined in the Eastern District of California. The Court's 3/2/2026 Order directed petitioner to show cause why this case should not be transferred to that district, because "for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement." See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004); see also Ozturk v. Hyde, 136 F.4th 382, 387 (2d Cir. 2025) (Where petitioner was detained by ICE in Massachusetts and transferred to Vermont, the "District of Vermont [was] likely the proper venue to adjudicate [the] habeas petition because, at the time [it was] filed, [petitioner] was physically in Vermont"). Petitioner now concedes that the proper venue for this habeas petition is the Eastern District of California. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is transferred to the Eastern District of California. Ordered by Judge Brian M. Cogan on 3/24/2026. (TT)

Mar 24, 2026

Order

Mar 25, 2026

Case Transferred Out - District Transfer

Mar 30, 2026

Transfer Case Opened