Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01884/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01884-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BALWANT SINGH BRAR, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

)

v. )

)

)

)

)

ALBERTO GONZALES, )

)

Respondent. )

____________________________________)

1:06-CV-01884 OWW NEW (DLB) HC 

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION [Doc. #10]

ORDER APPOINTING FEDERAL DEFENDER

ORDER TO SUBMIT JOINT SCHEDULING

STATEMENT

ORDER SETTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING

Date: June 14, 2007

Time: 1:00 p.m. 

Courtroom: Nine 

Petitioner is being detained by the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (“ICE” - formerly Immigration and Naturalization Service “INS”) pending removal

from the United States. Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

In the petition filed on December 27, 2006, Petitioner claims Respondent lacks the statutory

authority to indefinitely detain him. He also contends that his indefinite detention violates his

substantive and procedural due process rights guaranteed under the United States Constitution. He

further contends that Respondent’s current detention of Petitioner is punitive in nature and

constitutes punishment without due process of law.

Case 1:06-cv-01884-OWW -LJO Document 14 Filed 05/03/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

On February 27, 2007, the undersigned issued a Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be denied without prejudice. The Court specifically found that there

appeared to be a significant likelihood of Petitioner’s removal to India in the reasonably foreseeable

future. This finding was based on the affidavit of Deportation Officer Dennis Allen (“Allen”) who

stated the Indian Embassy was currently researching Petitioner’s identity and was cooperating with

ICE’s attempts to remove Petitioner. The Court further found that Petitioner had not cooperated with

ICE’s attempts to remove him and that he posed a flight risk. These findings were based on Allen’s

averments that Petitioner had failed to cooperate with ICE in their attempts to obtain a birth

certificate and that Petitioner had not surrendered to authorities in 2004 when he was ordered to do

so.

On March 28, 2007, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation wherein

Petitioner flatly contradicts Allen. Petitioner maintains his removal is not reasonably foreseeable. He 

states he has cooperated with the INS in all respects, and he has completed and signed all travel

document applications and forms requested by the INS. In addition, he claims Allen’s statements are

inaccurate in that he has in fact made his own attempts to secure his birth certificate but the hospital

where he was born could find no record of his birth. That being so, he claims he cannot secure travel

documents and therefore India will not repatriate him.

Petitioner also controverts Allen’s statement that Petitioner was arrested at his home by the

Bakersfield Fugitive Operations Unit after failing to surrender as ordered. Petitioner states he

received the surrender order and contacted an immigration attorney who subsequently obtained a stay

of the order. He states he did not wilfully disobey any immigration order. Moreover, he states he was

not arrested at his home by the Fugitive Unit as Allen states. Petitioner asserts he voluntarily traveled

to the immigration office and spoke to an INS officer in response to an INS letter which stated he

had an interview appointment with the INS. He states he was then told a deportation order had been

entered against him whereupon he was arrested and taken into custody.

Because of these significant factual discrepancies, the Court finds an evidentiary hearing is

necessary. In addition, the Court will withdraw the Findings and Recommendation.

///

Case 1:06-cv-01884-OWW -LJO Document 14 Filed 05/03/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 3

ORDER 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1) The Findings and Recommendation entered on February 27, 2007 is vacated;

2) The Federal Defender is appointed to represent Petitioner;

3) The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of Petitioner’s habeas corpus

application and a copy of this Order on David M. Porter, Assistant Federal Defender;

4) Petitioner’s counsel shall contact the Clerk’s Office to make arrangements for copies

of other documents in the file;

5) An evidentiary hearing will be held on June 14, 2007 at 1:00 p.m., in Courtroom Nine

before the undersigned;

6) Within thirty (30) days of this Order, the parties shall file a joint scheduling statement

which addresses the following matters:

a) The number and identity of witnesses to be called;

b) The estimated duration of the hearing; and

c) Any anticipated motions.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 1, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01884-OWW -LJO Document 14 Filed 05/03/07 Page 3 of 3