Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02628/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02628-0/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 (Federal)

---

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

JKM

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Martiniano Pacheco-Tellez, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Alberto Gonzales, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2628-PHX-DGC (VAM)

ORDER

Petitioner Martiniano Pacheco-Tellez (A92-561-114), who is confined in the Eloy

Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner also has filed a Motion for Emergency Stay of Deportation

(Doc. #2) and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (attached to Doc. #2). Petitioner’s

motions will be denied and the Petition will be dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner’s

prosecution of his claims in his petition for review with the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States more than

twenty five years ago. He was subsequently convicted of Open or Gross Lewdness in

violation of Nevada law. On February 18, 2004, an immigration judge entered an order to

deport Petitioner to Mexico under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) (alien convicted of an

aggravated felony) and 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) (alien convicted of a child abuse offense).

Case 2:05-cv-02628-DGC--VAM Document 4 Filed 10/14/05 Page 1 of 4
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

- 2 -

On March 18, 2005, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed Petitioner’s

appeal. On July 21, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied

Petitioner’s petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Pacheco-Tellez v. Gonzales, No. 05-

71741 (9th Cir. Jul. 21, 2005) (unpublished order). However, the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal

order provided that the temporary stay of removal previously entered by that court was to

remain in effect until the issuance of the court’s mandate. Id. On August 9, 2005, Petitioner

filed a motion to reconsider and to stay the mandate with the Ninth Circuit. The appellate

docket reflects that Petitioner’s motion to reconsider is still pending and that the mandate has

not yet issued.

In his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner challenges his removal order on

the grounds that his Nevada conviction should not have been treated as either an aggravated

felony or a child abuse offense. He also claims that the Ninth Circuit’s dismissal of his

petition for review for lack of jurisdiction was erroneous because he was not convicted of a

jurisdiction stripping offense. The Petition will be dismissed because this Court lacks

jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to a final order of removal.

JURISDICTION

On May 11, 2005, the President signed into law the REAL ID Act of 2005. Pub. L.

No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005). As amended by the REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C. §

1252(a)(5) now provides in relevant part:

(5) EXCLUSIVE MEANS OF REVIEW. – Notwithstanding any other

provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title 28,

United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361

and 1651 of such title, a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of

appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means

for judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued under any

provision of this Act, except as provided in subsection (e).

REAL ID Act §106(a)(1)(B). By this amendment, Congress has deprived this Court of

habeas corpus jurisdiction to review an order of removal entered under the Immigration and

Nationality Act. Moreover, § 106(b) of the REAL ID Act provides that § 106(a) of the Act

is retroactive: “subsection (a) shall take effect upon the date of enactment of this division and

shall apply to cases in which the final administrative order of removal, deportation, or

Case 2:05-cv-02628-DGC--VAM Document 4 Filed 10/14/05 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

exclusion was issued before, on, or after the date of enactment.” REAL ID Act § 106(b). 

In addition to stripping the district courts of jurisdiction to review orders of removal,

the REAL ID Act also “restored judicial review of constitutional claims and questions of law

presented in petitions for review of final removal orders” in the courts of appeals.

Fernandez-Ruiz v. Gonzales, 410 F.3d 585, 587 (9th Cir. 2005). Under the prior version of

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(C), the courts of appeals were deprived of jurisdiction to review

removal orders entered against certain criminal aliens. But § 106(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the REAL

ID Act restored jurisdiction in the courts of appeals to review removal orders entered against

criminal aliens:

(D) JUDICIAL REVIEW OF CERTAIN LEGAL CLAIMS. – Nothing in

subparagraph (B) or (C), or in any other provision of this Act (other than this

section) which limits or eliminates judicial review, shall be construed as

precluding review of constitutional claims or questions of law raised upon a

petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance

with this section.

REAL ID Act §106(a)(1)(A)(iii); Fernandez-Ruiz, 410 F.3d at 587. Additionally, § 106(c)

of the REAL ID Act provides that if any § 2241 habeas corpus case “challenging a final

administrative order of removal . . . is pending in a district court on the date of enactment,

then the district court shall transfer the case . . . to the [appropriate] court of appeals.” REAL

ID Act §106(c) (emphasis added). This action, however, cannot be transferred under §

106(c) because it was not pending in this Court on the date of enactment. Additionally, it is

unnecessary to transfer this action to the court of appeals since Petitioner’s motion to

reconsider the dismissal of his petition for review is still pending in that court. Accordingly,

this action will be dismissed without prejudice to Petitioner’s prosecution of his motion to

reconsider in Pacheco-Tellez v. Gonzales, No. 05-71741 (9th Cir. motion filed Aug. 9, 2005).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this action is dismissed without prejudice for

lack of jurisdiction and the Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

//

//

Case 2:05-cv-02628-DGC--VAM Document 4 Filed 10/14/05 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Emergency Stay of

Deportation (Doc. #2) and Motion for Appointment of Counsel (attached to Doc. #2) are

denied as moot.

Dated this 13th day of October, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-02628-DGC--VAM Document 4 Filed 10/14/05 Page 4 of 4