Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03635/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03635-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-3635 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

 *E-Filed 11/9/15*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

JOSE MIGUEL BAIRES,

Petitioner,

v.

LORETTA E. LYNCH, and

JEH C. JOHNSON, 

Respondents. /

No. C 15-3635 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

INTRODUCTION

 Petitioner seeks federal habeas relief from his continued detention by the United

States Immigration and Custom Enforcement (“ICE”). To this end he has filed a petition

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. In response to the petition, respondents shall file an answer or a

dispositive motion on or before February 10, 2016. 

BACKGROUND

The following facts come from the petition. Petitioner, an alien housed at the Etowah

County Detention Center in Gadsden, Alabama, challenges his continued detention and the

denial of his application for release on bail pending removal. He asserts that ICE has held

Case 3:15-cv-03635-RS Document 13 Filed 11/09/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 It is unclear whether he has been held since 2012 or 2013. In one filing, he states that

ICE has held him since February 2013. (Docket No. 1 at 2.) In another, he alleges that the

Department of Homeland Security arrested him in February 2012. (Docket No. 2 at 2.) 

No. C 15-3635 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

2

him in custody since February 2013.1 In April 2013, an immigration judge (“IJ”) sitting in

the Northern District of California ordered him removed. His appeals of the removal order

were dismissed. He applied for a bond re-determination, which was denied by the IJ in

December 2014. His appeal of the bond decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals was

dismissed in April 2015. This federal habeas petition followed. 

DISCUSSION

District courts have habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review an

immigration judge’s bond hearing determination for constitutional claims and legal error. 

Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 2011). Petitioner alleges that the denial of

bail and his continued detention violate his right to due process. When his allegations are

liberally construed, it appears that petitioner has stated cognizable habeas claims under

section 2241. 

CONCLUSION

1. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this order, the petition and all attachments thereto,

on respondents and respondents’ counsel. The Clerk shall also send a copy of the petition to

the Attorney General of the United States in Washington, DC, and on petitioner. 

2. Respondents shall file with this Court and serve upon the petitioner, within ninety

(90) days of the issuance of this order, an answer responding to the allegation of the petition

and showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondents shall file

with the answer a copy of all documents that are relevant to a determination of the issues

presented by the petition. 

3. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse

with the Court and serving it upon respondents within thirty (30) days after the date the

answer is filed. 

Case 3:15-cv-03635-RS Document 13 Filed 11/09/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-3635 RS (PR)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

3

4. In lieu of an answer, respondents may file, within ninety (90) days of the date this

order is filed, a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds. If respondents file such a motion,

petitioner shall file with the Court and serve on respondents an opposition or statement of

non-opposition within thirty (30) days of the date the motion is filed, and respondents shall

file with the Court and serve on petitioner a reply within fifteen (15) days of the date any

opposition is filed.

4. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the Court must be served on

respondents by mailing a true copy of the document to respondents’ counsel. 

5. It is petitioner’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Petitioner must keep the

Court and respondents informed of any change of address and must comply with the Court’s

orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for

failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

6. Upon a showing of good cause, requests for a reasonable extension of time will be

granted provided they are filed on or before the deadline they seek to extend.

7. The Court notes that the filing fee has been paid. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 9, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge 

Case 3:15-cv-03635-RS Document 13 Filed 11/09/15 Page 3 of 3