Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02235/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02235-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
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

- 1 - 06cv2235

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AKINYELE ADELEKE,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 06cv2235-LAB (BLM)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

vs.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary of

Department of Homeland Security, RON

SMITH, District Director (I.C.E.),

Respondents.

On October 4, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241 stating that he seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement while

he is being held by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security pending deportation.

Specifically, he seeks to be released on bond pending removal.

At the time of filing, Petitioner had an appeal of removal proceedings pending before

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On November 1, 2006, this Court granted Petitioner

leave to file in forma pauperis (“IFP”), but did not order his petition to be served.

On November 21, 2006, the Court dismissed the petition without prejudice, noting

certain deficiencies, and permitted Petitioner to file an amended petition addressing the

deficiencies. The deficiencies identified included failure to plead exhaustion of

administrative remedies, an incomplete statement of the status of matters pending before

other tribunals, and, most significantly, the apparent unripeness of Plaintiff’s claim. 

Case 3:06-cv-02235-LAB-BLM Document 17 Filed 02/13/07 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

- 2 - 06cv2235

Plaintiff was specifically cautioned that if he failed to amend his petition within the

permitted time to correct the deficiencies, it could be dismissed without further notice to him.

On December 1, 2006, Petitioner submitted an ex parte motion for an extension of time,

citing lack of access to library facilities. Petitioner mentioned that he had not yet received

the Court’s order of November 21. The Court issued an order granting Petitioner’s request,

but specifically addressed the ripeness issue, pointing out that the Court lacked jurisdiction

to decide unripe questions. The Court cautioned him that if the petition was unripe when it

was filed, he could not rely on events unfolding later to create jurisdiction if none existed at

the time of filing.

On January 12, 2007, Petitioner again moved ex parte for an extension of time to file

his amended petition, stating that although he had been telephonically advised of the Court’s

November 21, 2006 order, he had yet to receive a copy of it. The Court granted Petitioner’s

motion, and directed the Clerk to re-send a copy of that order. The Court directed Petitioner

to observe the instructions in its previous orders, and specifically repeated its cautions

regarding unripeness.

On February 6, 2007, Petitioner sent the Court his amended petition. In it, Petitioner

has attempted to provide a clearer picture of the efforts he has taken to exhaust his

administrative remedies, and of matters he has pending before other tribunals.

Previously, Petitioner stated he had filed an appeal of his removal order, but that he

learned on September 5, 2006 that his appeal had been withdrawn. The Court inferred,

therefore, that Petitioner’s removal order could have become final no later than a few days

before September 5, 2006. Assuming this to be true, the Court reasoned, the petition was

not ripe when it was filed, because a 90-day removal period follows entry of a removal order,

during which the Attorney General must detain the alien. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)–(2).

On the basis of the petition, it appeared that at the time the petition was filed, Petitioner was

not eligible for release on bond. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3); 8 C.F.R. § 241.4(c)(1), (h), (k)(1)(I)

(2001) (providing for review by the Immigration and Naturalization Services Director following

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-02235-LAB-BLM Document 17 Filed 02/13/07 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

- 3 - 06cv2235

expiration of the 90 days). See also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 683, 121 S.Ct. 2491,

2495 (U.S. 2001) (discussing statutory provisions of eligibility for supervised release).

The amended petition includes an update on the finality of the order of removal, and

states that the Board of Immigration Appeals reopened his appeal and finally dismissed it

only on October 29, 2006. (Am. Pet. at 4.) Petitioner says he then appealed the removal

order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. (Id.) Therefore, at the time the

petition was filed, Petitioner’s notice of removal had not yet become administratively final,

and the 90-day removal period had not yet begun to run. See 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(a) (removal

order becomes final “[u]pon dismissal of an appeal by the Board of Immigration Appeals.”)

Even construing the amended petition liberally, at the time of filing, Petitioner had not yet

become eligible for release on bond.

The Court lacks jurisdiction to decide unripe questions, Lockary v. Kayfetz, 917 F.2d

1150, 1153 (9th Cir. 1990), and ripeness is determined as of the time of filing. Wilbur v.

Locke, 423 F.3d 1101, 1107 (9th Cir. 2005). Therefore, on the basis of the pleadings, this

Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claims. The Court therefore does not reach

the issue of whether the amended petition has cured the other deficiencies identified in the

Court’s previous orders.

The Petition is therefore DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, AND WITHOUT

LEAVE TO AMEND.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 9, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02235-LAB-BLM Document 17 Filed 02/13/07 Page 3 of 3