Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02133/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02133-0/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

TERMPSREF

WO JKM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Gonzalo Alvarez-Campos, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Tom Long, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-2133-PHX-MHM (JJM)

ORDER

Petitioner Gonzalo Alvarez-Campos (A77-177-515), who is represented by counsel,

has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court will

require Respondents to answer the Petition.

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. On September 6, 2005, an immigration

judge found Petitioner removable. On January 24, 2006, the Board of Immigration Appeals

(BIA) dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner’s appeal from the decision of the BIA is

currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court

of appeals has granted a stay of removal pending resolution of Petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner

argues that his continued detention without bond while his appeal is pending is unlawful.

The REAL ID Act of 2005 does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction because the Act

was “not intended to ‘preclude habeas review over challenges to detention that are

independent of challenges to removal orders.’” Hernandez v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 42, 42-43

(1st Cir. 2005) (quoting H.R. Cong. Rep. No. 109-72, at 2873 (2005)); See also Nadarajah

Case 2:06-cv-02133-MHM Document 5 Filed 10/04/06 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2006) (“By its terms, the jurisdiction-stripping

provision [of the REAL ID Act] does not apply to federal habeas corpus petitions that do not

involve final orders of removal.”). An answer to the Petition will be required.

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Summons, Petition and this Order

upon the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona by certified mail addressed to the

civil process clerk at the office of the United States Attorney pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(A) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court also must send by certified mail

a copy of the Summons, Petition and this Order to the United States Attorney General

pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(B) and to Respondents pursuant to Rule 4(i)(2)(A).

(2) Respondents must answer the Petition within twenty (20) days of the date of

service. Respondents must not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without first

showing cause as to why an answer is inadequate.

(3) Petitioner may file a reply within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the

answer.

(4) The matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Jacqueline J. Marshall pursuant to Rules

72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report and

recommendation.

DATED this 3rd day of October, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-02133-MHM Document 5 Filed 10/04/06 Page 2 of 2