Cruz v. Kandiyohi County Jail and Department of Homeland Security
Gertrudiz Bejarano Cruz, also known as GERTRUDEZ BEJARANO CRUZ and GERTRUDIZ RODRIGO BEJARANO CRUZ v. Kandiyohi County Jail and Department of Homeland Security
- John Tunheim
- 0:25-cv-04127
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Gertrudiz Bejarano Cruz v. Kandiyohi County Jail and Department of Homeland Security, Judge Talwani of the District of Massachusetts transferred the case to the District of Minnesota because the court lacked the power to hear a petition challenging immigration detention in Minnesota.
Immigration detainees held in one federal judicial district who file habeas petitions in the wrong district court, and specifically Gertrudiz Bejarano Cruz, detained in Minnesota, whose case has been transferred to the proper federal court.
What happened
In Gertrudiz Bejarano Cruz v. Kandiyohi County Jail and Department of Homeland Security (Civil Action No. 25-cv-13055-IT), Gertrudiz Bejarano Cruz, an immigration detainee held at the Kandiyohi County Jail in Willmar, Minnesota, filed a petition asking a federal court to order immigration authorities to hold a bond hearing so he could seek release while pursuing his immigration case. He argued that the immigration court in Fort Snelling, Minnesota wrongly concluded it had no authority to consider his bond application, based on a recent ruling by the Board of Immigration Appeals (the federal administrative body that reviews immigration court decisions).
The Massachusetts federal court concluded it had no power to act on this petition. Under federal law, a court can only grant relief in a case involving someone's physical imprisonment if that person is held within that court's geographic territory. Because Bejarano Cruz is detained in Minnesota—not Massachusetts—the Massachusetts court has no jurisdiction (legal authority) over his case. The court noted there was no applicable exception to this rule.
Judge Talwani therefore ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for Minnesota, the court that does have geographic authority over his place of detention. The transfer was made under a federal statute that allows courts to send cases to a proper court rather than simply dismissing them, when doing so is in the interest of justice.
The detailed version
In this procedural order dated October 23, 2025, Judge Indira Talwani of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts addressed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (a court order requiring the government to justify a person's detention) filed by Gertrudiz Bejarano Cruz under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Bejarano Cruz is an immigration detainee held at the Kandiyohi County Jail in Willmar, Minnesota. He filed the petition in Massachusetts, alleging he is being wrongfully denied a bond hearing by the immigration court in Fort Snelling, Minnesota, which determined it lacked jurisdiction over his bond application based on the Board of Immigration Appeals' decision in Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 I&N Dec. 216 (BIA Sept. 5, 2025). Petitioner sought a court order directing the immigration court to conduct a bond hearing.
The court identified a threshold jurisdictional problem. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a) and the Supreme Court's holding in Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004), federal district courts may only grant habeas relief within their respective territorial jurisdictions. In cases challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies exclusively in the district of confinement, and the proper respondent is the immediate custodian — here, the Kandiyohi County Jail in Minnesota. The court noted that no exception to the immediate custodian rule applied, distinguishing Ozturk v. Trump, C.A. No. 25-cv-10695-DJC (D. Mass. Apr. 4, 2025), which had discussed but did not apply such exceptions in the present case.
Rather than dismissing the petition outright, Judge Talwani ordered the case transferred to the United States District Court for Minnesota pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, which permits transfer to a court with proper jurisdiction when transfer is in the interest of justice. The $5.00 filing fee had already been paid. No ruling was made on the merits of Bejarano Cruz's bond hearing claim; that question remains for the Minnesota court.
Reviewer note from the AI+
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.