Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00043/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00043-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD SOFOWORA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JOHN ASHCROFT, et al., )

)

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:05-cv-00043-OWW-TAG-HC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

GRANT EMERGENCY MOTION FOR STAY

OF FINAL ORDER OF DEPORTATION (Doc

10)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL (Doc. 10)

Petitioner, currently in the custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (“ICE”) and proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). 

A. Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus on January 10, 2005, in which he

asserts that he is a citizen of Nigeria, and an “alien” subject to a final order of deportation,

exclusion, or removal, who, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, is being mandatorily detained by ICE

in the Kern County Jail during his “detention” period. (Doc. 1, pp. 2-3). Petitioner asserts that

he is not awaiting trial or serving a sentence on any state or federal criminal case. (Doc. 1, p. 4). 

Petitioner challenges his mandatory detention as violative of his Fifth Amendment substantive

Case 1:05-cv-00043-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 05/19/05 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

1

 In this motion, Petitioner also requests that the Court release him on bond or on his own recognizance.

(Doc. 10, p. 2). The Court reserves its ruling on this request, until Respondent has had the opportunity to address the

issue when it files its response. 

2

and procedural due process rights. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Petitioner seeks immediate release from

custody under reasonable conditions of supervision. (Doc. 1, p. 5).

On May 3, 2005, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the petition should not be

granted. (Doc. 9). In that order, the ICE has been ordered to file a response within forty-five

days. (Id.). 

B. Motion for Injunctive Relief

On May 13, 2005, Petitioner filed an “Emergency Motion for Stay of The Final Order of

Deportation Pending Judicial Review of Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus” (“motion for

stay”), accompanied by a motion for appointment of counsel. (Doc. 10). A motion for stay

pending a district court’s review of the petition for writ of habeas corpus on the merits is

reviewed under the same standards employed in evaluating motions for preliminary injunctive

relief. Andreiu v. Ashcroft, 253 F.2d 477 (9th Cir. 2001); see also Zegarra-Gomez v. INS, 314

F.3d 1124, 1125 (9th Cir. 2003). The petitioner must show “either a probability of success on the

merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious legal questions are raised and the

balance of hardships tips sharply in petitioner’s favor. Andreiu v. Ashcroft, 253 F.3d at 480

(quoting Abbassi v. INS, 143 F.3d 513, (9th Cir. 1998).) 

In Petitioner’s emergency motion for a stay, Petitioner contends that the Board of

Immigration Appeals and the Immigration Judge impermissibly deprived him of his due process

rights by failing to inform him of various legal options, e.g., adjustment of status and a waiver of

removal by the Attorney General, purportedly available to him at the time the original

deportation order was issued. (Doc. 10, p. 2). Petitioner’s allegations raise a probability of

success on the merits and the fact of his deportation prior to a ruling on the instant petition for

writ of habeas corpus demonstrates irreparable harm. Accordingly, on balance Petitioner has met

his burden of demonstrating a probability of success on the merits and the possibility of

irreparable injury; therefore, the Court RECOMMENDS that the stay be GRANTED.1

Case 1:05-cv-00043-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 05/19/05 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

C. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 

There currently exists no absolute right to appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. 

See e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958);

Mitchell v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). However, Title 18

U.S.C. § 3006A, authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of

justice so require.” See Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the present case, the

Court does not find that the interests of justice would be served by the appointment of counsel at

this time. Therefore, the motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

ORDER

It is HEREBY ORDERED that:

Petitioner’s Emergency Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 10), is DENIED.

RECOMMENDATION

It is hereby RECOMMENDED that:

Petitioner’s Emergency Motion For Stay of Final Order of Deportation (Doc. 10), be

GRANTED.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and

Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District

of California. Within fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy of this Report and

Recommendation, any party may file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all

parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and

Recommendation.” Replies to the Objections shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days

(plus three days if served by mail) after service of the Objections. The Court will then review the

Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00043-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 05/19/05 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

failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the Order of the 

District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 18, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00043-OWW -TAG Document 11 Filed 05/19/05 Page 4 of 4