Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00529/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00529-2/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

NIRMAL SINGH, ) 1:07-cv-00529-LJO-TAG HC

)

Petitioner, ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

 ) GRANT MOTION TO DISMISS PETITION

v. ) FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

) (Doc. 13) 

ALBERTO GONZALES, et al., ) 

) ORDER REQUIRING OBJECTIONS TO BE FILED

Respondents. ) WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS

____________________________________)

Petitioner, at the time the petition was filed, was detained by the United States Bureau of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and was proceeding with a Petition for a Writ of

Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 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. 

Petitioner originally filed his petition on April 5, 2007. (Doc. 1). On July 26, 2007, the

Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the petition should not be granted. (Doc. 9). On

September 10, 2007, Respondent filed his response, indicating that Petitioner had not cooperated

with the removal process and therefore the Court should conclude that his continued detention

pending removal was lawful. (Doc. 11). On January 29, 2008, Respondent filed the instant motion

to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. (Doc. 13). In that motion, Respondent contends that the Court

now lacks jurisdiction over the proceedings because Petitioner was removed from the United States

on November 30, 2007, pursuant to a final order of removal. (Doc. 13, Exh. 1). 

///

///

Case 1:07-cv-00529-LJO-TAG Document 14 Filed 05/20/08 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

The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases can be applied to petitions other than those brought under § 2254 at the Court’s 1

discretion. See, Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

2

DISCUSSION

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show

that “he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A habeas

corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his

confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.1991)(quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411

U.S. 475, 485, 93 S. Ct. 1827 (1973)); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases. However, the petition must “allege facts concerning the applicant’s

commitment or detention,” 28 U.S.C. § 2242, and the Petitioner must make specific factual

allegations that would entitle him to habeas corpus relief if they are true. O’Bremski v. Maass, 915

F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.1990). If it may be conclusively determined from the face of the petition that

Petitioner is not entitled to relief on the grounds alleged, then the petition must be dismissed. Rule 4

of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases ; Peterson v. Wilson, 373 F.2d 737, 738 (9th Cir.1967). 1

Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court is required to make a

preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. “If it plainly appears from the face of

the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief,” the Court must dismiss the petition. Rule

4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.1990).

In the instant case, the only issue before this Court has been the lawfulness of Petitioner’s

ongoing detention by Respondent, and the only relief which the Court could have afforded to

Petitioner in these proceedings was an order releasing him from custody, in the event that the Court

determined that his continued detention by ICE was unlawful. The record now before the Court

establishes that Petitioner was removed from the United States on November 30, 2007, and is no

longer in custody of Respondent. (Doc. 13, Exh. 1). Thus, there is no habeas relief the Court can

afford to Petitioner. Since there is no further relief that the Court can afford Petitioner, Respondent’s

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction should be GRANTED and the Petition should be

DISMISSED for failure to state a claim as it is now MOOT. 

///

Case 1:07-cv-00529-LJO-TAG Document 14 Filed 05/20/08 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

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS as follows:

1. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction (Doc. 13), should be

GRANTED;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), should be DISMISSED for failure to

state a claim as it is now MOOT.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this case, 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, 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 Recommendations.” The District Judge 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 Judge’s Order. 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 20, 2008 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00529-LJO-TAG Document 14 Filed 05/20/08 Page 3 of 3