Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03046/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03046-0/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 (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

WO JKM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Banjo Lopez Lapena, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Phillip Crawford, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-3046-PHX-MHM (CRP)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration. (Doc. #8.) The

Court will deny the Motion.

On December 20, 2006, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas alleging that he

had been subject to a deportation order since May 18, 2004. He further alleged that he had

been in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody for more than two years and

that his “removal is not likely in the foreseeable future.” Petition at 5. Relying on Zadvydas

v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001), Petitioner argued that his continued detention by ICE

was not lawful.

On April 12, 2007, the Court denied the Petition and dismissed this action. The Court

held that Petitioner was subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) during

the 90-day removal period which commenced on March 15, 2007, when the Ninth Circuit

dismissed Petitioner’s petition for review in Lapena v. Gonzales, 06-71547, 2007 WL

836711 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2007) (unpublished memorandum). See Khotesouvan v. Morones,

Case 2:06-cv-03046-MHM--CRP Document 9 Filed 09/07/07 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 -

386 F.3d 1298, 1299 (9th Cir. 2004) (“an alien ordered removed . . . cannot raise a colorable

claim for release under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment until at least 90 days

of detention have passed”). 

In his Motion for Reconsideration, Petitioner argues that the 90-day removal period

has not yet begun because his petition for review is still pending before the Ninth Circuit.

Petitioner claims that his appeal is still pending because the Ninth Circuit’s March 15, 2007

memorandum decision merely denied in part his petition for review. He also asserts that the

Ninth Circuit’s memorandum decision is not final because he has filed a motion for

clarification of that decision.

It is true that the Ninth Circuit memorandum decision only denied one of Petitioner’s

claims. But Petitioner’s remaining claims were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Lapena

v. Gonzales, 06-71547, 2007 WL 836711, at *1 (9th Cir. Mar. 15, 2007) (unpublished

memorandum). The mere fact that the petition for review was denied in part and dismissed

in part does not mean that the action was still pending after the memorandum decision issued.

The memorandum decision resolved all of Petitioner’s claims and terminated the action.

It is also true, however, that the Ninth Circuit treated Petitioner’s motion for

clarification as a request for an extension of time to file a petition for rehearing. Lapena v.

Gonzales, 06-71547 (9th Cir. May 9, 2007) (unpublished order). Furthermore, on July 5,

2007, Petitioner filed a petition for rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit. Id. But

Petitioner’s motion for rehearing was denied on August 8, 2007, and the mandate terminating

his petition for review issued on August 16, 2007. Id. Petitioner is, therefore, currently

subject to mandatory detention during the 90-day removal period, which commenced when

the Ninth Circuit issued its mandate. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii), (a)(2). Because

Petitioner’s detention is mandatory during the 90-day removal period, he is not entitled to

habeas corpus relief. See Khotesouvan, 386 F.3d at 1299. Petitioner’s Motion for

Reconsideration will, therefore, be denied.

////

////

Case 2:06-cv-03046-MHM--CRP Document 9 Filed 09/07/07 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 -

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #8) is denied.

DATED this 6th day of September, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-03046-MHM--CRP Document 9 Filed 09/07/07 Page 3 of 3