Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01699/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01699-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISHMAEL MIZRAHI, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

vs. )

)

)

W. J. SULLIVAN, Warden, )

)

Respondent. )

)

)

___________________________________ )

1:06-CV-01699-AWI WMW HC

FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS RE

DISMISSAL OF PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

The court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Based on this review, the court has determined that it

plainly appears from the petition that Petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court. 

The court therefore concludes that this case must be dismissed. 

In his petition, Petitioner challenges the action of Immigration and Customs

Case 1:06-cv-01699-AWI-WMW Document 5 Filed 01/23/07 Page 1 of 2
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

Enforcement in lodging a detainer against him. However, in Garcia v. Taylor, 40 F.3d 299, 

303 (9 Cir. 1994), superceded by statute on other grounds, the Court of Appeals for the th

Ninth Circuit concluded that “the bare detainer letter alone does not sufficiently place an

alien in INS custody to make habeas corpus available.” See Campos v. Immigration and

Naturalization Service, 62 F.3d 311, 314 (9 Cir. 1995)(relying on Garcia to dismiss federal th

prisoner’s habeas corpus petition seeking to obtain expedited deportation hearing ).

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the petition for writ

of habeas corpus be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction and that judgment be entered for

Respondent.

These Findings and Recommendation are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 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 thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, 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 Findings 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 failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 19, 2007 /s/ William M. Wunderlich 

mmkd34 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01699-AWI-WMW Document 5 Filed 01/23/07 Page 2 of 2