Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00818/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-00818-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1651 Petition for Writ of Coram Nobis

---

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 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Ignacio Medina-Armenta, ) Case No. CV 05-818-PHX-ROS (JM)

)

Plaintiff, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

v. )

)

Department of Homeland Security, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________)

In accordance with the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the

District of Arizona and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this matter was referred to the Magistrate

Judge for report and recommendation. As explained below, the Magistrate Judge

recommends that the District Court, after an independent review of the record, enter a final

judgment in this case or, alternatively, dismiss the action for want of prosecution. 

I. BACKGROUND

In November 2003, Plaintiff Ignacio Medina-Armenta was arraigned and charged by

the State of Arizona on four counts of first degree murder. The charges arose from the

November 3, 2003, shooting deaths of four undocumented immigrants from Mexico. 

On March 17, 2005, while incarcerated and awaiting trial, Plaintiff filed a Complaint

for Injunction [Docket No. 1], accompanied by an Application for Preliminary Injunction

[Docket No. 4]. In the Complaint and the Application, Plaintiff explains that witness

interviews had been conducted in the State case and that Melchor Figueroa-Popoca, a

Mexican citizen, had been identified as an eyewitness who would provide testimony

exculpatory to Plaintiff. According to Plaintiff, Figueroa-Popoca had been residing in

Case 2:05-cv-00818-ROS Document 15 Filed 02/13/07 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 -

Chicago, Illinois, with the express authorization of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

("ICE"), but that on February 25, 2005, Plaintiff was informed that ICE intended to deport

Figueroa-Popoca. As such, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint and Application for

Preliminary Injunction alleging that the deportation of Figueroa-Popoca would violate his

Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and requesting that the Defendants

be enjoined from deporting Figueroa-Popoca until he was no longer needed as a defense

witness. In response to the Motion, Defendants indicated that ICE had decided that

Figueroa-Popoca would not be deported and alleged that the matter was therefore moot.

 On March 21, 2005, District Judge Silver conducted a hearing on the Application for

Preliminary Injunction. Docket No. 7. During the hearing, Judge Silver allowed Jose

Molina-Gastelum, Plaintiff's co-defendant in the State case, to intervene in the action. In the

Minute Entry issued after the hearing, Judge Silver ordered that the Defendants "prepare a

form of order by 12:00 p.m. on March 22, 2005, indicating that the defendants will comply

with all of the representations made in court." [Id.].

On March 22, 2005, Judge Silver entered her order on the Application for Preliminary

Injunction. Docket No. 13. Defendants were ordered, inter alia, to allow Figueroa-Popoca

to remain in the United States "until such time as his testimony is no longer necessary in the

state prosecution." No other action has been taken in the case since the entry of the order on

the Preliminary Injunction.

II. DISCUSSION

Based on the procedural and factual history of this case, the Magistrate Judge

recommends that the District Court convert the preliminary injunction into a permanent

injunction and enter judgment accordingly. Factually, such an approach is supported by the

record which establishes the parties are in agreement that Figueroa-Popoca would not be

deported until his presence in the United States was no longer necessary in relation to the

State prosecutions of the Plaintiff and Intervenor. Procedurally, the conversion of the

preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction can by accomplished by stipulation of the

parties or pursuant to Rule 65(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. The latter provision allows the evidence

Case 2:05-cv-00818-ROS Document 15 Filed 02/13/07 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 -

received at the hearing on the preliminary injunction to become part of the record to be

considered upon trial of the matter. As such, if the parties do not object to the procedure and

do not need or want a trial on the merits, the Court can enter the final order on the existing

record.

Alternatively, an order to show cause can be issued based on the Plaintiff's failure to

prosecute this action. Although Defendants filed a response to the application for

preliminary injunction, an answer has yet to be filed and the time for doing so has long-since

expired. See Rule 12(a)(3)(A), Fed.R.Civ.P. (allowing 60 days after service for the filing of

an answer). However, Plaintiff has not sought a default of the Defendants or taken other

action in this matter. Pursuant to Local Rule–Civil 41.1, after notice is given and a status

hearing is conducted, any action which has had no proceedings for six months may be

dismissed by the court for want of prosecution unless the parties can show good cause why

such action should not be taken. 

III. RECOMMENDATION

For all of the above reasons, THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE RECOMMENDS that

the District Court, after its independent review and notice to the parties, enter a permanent

injunction and final judgment in this matter.

This Recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the District Court's judgment. 

However, the parties shall have ten (10) days from the date of service of a copy of this

recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Rules 72(b), 6(a) and 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Thereafter, the parties have ten (10) days within which to file a response to the objections.

If any objections are filed, this action should be designated case number: CV 05-818-PHXROS. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate

Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues.

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc).

Case 2:05-cv-00818-ROS Document 15 Filed 02/13/07 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 -

DATED this 13th day of February, 2007.

Case 2:05-cv-00818-ROS Document 15 Filed 02/13/07 Page 4 of 4