Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02699/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02699-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY FRIDAY UDOM,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11-CV-2699 - IEG (NLS)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Doc. No. 1]

(2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

[Doc. No. 10]

vs.

U.S. IMMIGRATION, CUSTOMS

ENFORCEMENT,

Respondent.

On November 17, 2011, Petitioner Anthony Friday Udom (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se,

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). [Doc. No. 1.] 

On January 13, 2012, Respondent filed a return to the Petition. [Doc. No. 5.] On January 27, 2012,

Petitioner filed his traverse. [Doc. No. 11.] For the reasons below, the Court DENIES the Petition.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Nigeria who became a lawful permanent resident of the

United States on August 27, 1982. [Doc. No. 5-1, Return Exs. at 17.] On September 11, 1998,

Petitioner was convicted of possession of marijuana for sale in violation of California Health and

Safety Code § 11359. [Id. at 5, 17.] As a result of this, on June 29, 2005, the Department of

- 1 - 11cv2699-IEG (NLS)

Case 3:11-cv-02699-IEG-NLS Document 12 Filed 02/06/12 Page 1 of 5
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

Homeland Security placed him in removal proceedings. [Id. at 16-18.] On October 31, 2005, an

Immigration Judge (“IJ”) granted Petitioner relief from removal, in the form of withholding of

removal pursuant to Immigration and Nationality Act § 241(b)(3). [Id. at 19.]

On October 28, 2008, Petitioner was convicted of attempted second degree robbery in violation

of California Penal Code §§ 211, 664. [Doc. No. 5-1, Return Exs. at 14, 21-23.] Based on this 2008

conviction, DHS again placed Petitioner in removal proceedings, [id. at 39-40], and took Petitioner

into custody on or about February 1, 2011. [Id. at 47-50.]

On May 6, 2011, Petitioner filed a motion to terminate the case. [Doc. No. 5-1, Return Exs.

at 56.] On May 25, 2011, the IJ granted the motion and terminated the case without prejudice. [Id.] 

In the order, the IJ explained that prior to seeking removal, the Government must first reopen the prior

proceedings in which Petitioner’s withholding status was granted and obtain a termination of

Petitioner’s grant of withholding of removal. [Id.] The Government then moved to reopen the prior

proceedings, and the motion was granted by the IJ on July 7, 2011. [Id. at 57.] Petitioner appealed

the IJ’s decision to reopen the proceedings to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), and on

November 3, 2011, the BIA dismissed the appeal. [Id. at 66.] Petitioner’s merit hearing on his

removal proceedings before the IJ is scheduled to take place on March 9, 2012. [Id. at 67-68.]

On August 23, 2011, Petitioner filed his first petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241 in federal district court. Udom v. Dep’t Homeland Security, 11-cv-2175-WQH (S.D.

Cal., filed Aug. 23, 2011 [Doc. No. 1]). On November 8, 2011, after the Government filed a return

to the first petition, Petitioner filed an amended petition in that same case. See id. (S.D. Cal., filed

Nov. 8, 2011 [Doc. No. 13]). On November 17, 2011, Petitioner filed the present Petition before this

Court. [Doc. No. 1, Petition.] On November 30, 2011, Petitioner filed a fourth habeas petition

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Udom v. U.S. Immigration, Custom Enforcement, 11-cv-2789-LAB

(S.D. Cal., filed Nov. 30, 2011 [Doc. No. 1]).

In the present Petition, Petitioner requests that the Court determine whether his 1998

conviction for possession of marijuana for sale constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. §

1101(a)(43)(B) or a controlled substances conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(b)(i) and can be

used to support a charge of deportability. [Petition at 4-7.] On January 13, 2011, Respondent filed

- 2 - 11cv2699-IEG (NLS)

Case 3:11-cv-02699-IEG-NLS Document 12 Filed 02/06/12 Page 2 of 5
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

a return to the petition, arguing that the Petition should be denied because (1) prudential

considerations prevent this Court from considering Petitioner’s challenge to his removal proceedings;

(2) the Petition is successive and violates the abuse-of-writ doctrine; and (3) the Petition seeks an

impermissible advisory opinion from this Court. [Doc. No. 5, Return at 3-6.] On January 26, 2012,

Petitioner filed his traverse. [Doc. No. 11.]

DISCUSSION

I. The Petition

A. Article III’s Case-or-Controversy Requirement

Respondent argues that Petitioner is seeking an impermissible advisory opinion from this

Court. [Return at 6.] Article III of the Constitution “limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to live

cases and controversies, and as such, federal courts may not issue advisory opinions.” Kittel v.

Thomas, 620 F.3d 949, 951 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing U.S. CONST. art. III; Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83,

96 (1968)); see also Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U.S. 103, 108 (1969) (“The federal courts established

pursuant to Article III of the Constitution do not render advisory opinions. For adjudication of

constitutional issues, concrete legal issues, presented in actual cases, not abstractions, are requisite.”

(quotation marks omitted)). “Failure to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement renders

a habeas petition moot.” Mujahid v. Daniels, 413 F.3d 991, 994 (9th Cir. 2005).

In the present Petition, Petitioner requests that this Court determine whether his 1998

conviction for possession of marijuana for sale can be used to support a charge of deportability. 

[Petition at 4-7.] However, Petitioner’s 1998 conviction is not being used to support a charge of

deportability in his current removal proceedings. The record shows that Petitioner’s current removal

proceedings are based on his 2008 conviction for attempted second degree robbery, not his 1998

conviction. [Doc. No. 5-1, Return Exs. at 39.] In addition, although Petitioner’s prior removal

proceedings were reopened to determine if the Government could obtain a termination of Petitioner’s

withholding of removal pursuant to 24 C.F.R. § 1208.24(a), (b), Petitioner has not shown that his 1998

conviction is involved in that determination. Therefore, there is no live case-or-controversy with

respect to the 1998 conviction, and this Court’s determination of whether the 1998 conviction could

be used to support a charge of deportability would be an impermissible advisory opinion. 

- 3 - 11cv2699-IEG (NLS)

Case 3:11-cv-02699-IEG-NLS Document 12 Filed 02/06/12 Page 3 of 5
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

Accordingly, the Petition fails to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement, and the Petition

is moot. See Mujahid, 413 F.3d at 994.

B. Abuse of Writ Doctrine

Respondent argues that the Petition should be denied under the abuse of writ doctrine because

Petitioner could have raised the present challenges in his previous petitions. [Return at 5.] The abuse

of writ doctrine generally “forbids the reconsideration of claims that were or could have been raised

in a prior habeas petition.” Calderon v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 163 F.3d 530, 538 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc),

overruled in part on other grounds by Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202 (2003); see also McCleskey

v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 479-96 (1991) (explaining doctrine). Under the abuse of writ doctrine, a

successive petition must be dismissed “unless the petitioner can show (1) cause for bringing a

successive petition and that prejudice would result or (2) that a fundamental miscarriage of justice

would result from failure to entertain the claim.” Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1049 (9th

Cir. 2011) (citing McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 494-95 (1991); Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S.

1, 15 (1963)). The government bears the burden of pleading abuse of the writ. Id.

Prior to filing the present § 2241 Petition, Petitioner filed a § 2241 petition in federal district

court on August 23, 2011 challenging his removal proceedings and filed an amended petition in that

case on November 8, 2011. See Udom v. Dep’t Homeland Security, 11-cv-2175-WQH (S.D. Cal.,

filed Aug. 23, 2011 [Doc. Nos. 1, 13]). Petitioner could have brought his present claims in those prior

petitions, and the current Petition is successive. Petitioner does not give any explanation for why he

did not raise his present claims in the prior petitions. Therefore, Petitioner has not shown cause for

bringing a successive petition or shown that a fundamental miscarriage of justice will result from the

failure to entertain his claim. See McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 494-95; Alaimalo, 645 F.3d at 1049. 

Accordingly, the present petition constitutes an abuse of the writ.

C. Merits

Even if the Petition should not be dismissed for the above reasons, the Petition should be

denied on the merits. Petitioner appears to contend that his 1998 conviction for possession of

marijuana for sale does not constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) or a

controlled substances conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i) and cannot be used to support a

- 4 - 11cv2699-IEG (NLS)

Case 3:11-cv-02699-IEG-NLS Document 12 Filed 02/06/12 Page 4 of 5
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

charge of deportability. [Petition at 4-7.] A conviction for possession of marijuana for sale in

violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11359 is categorically an “aggravated felony” as

defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) that renders a person removeable under 8 U.S.C. §

1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). See Zuniga-Perez v. Holder, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23104, at *5 (9th Cir. 2011);

Solorzano-Rodriguez v. Holder, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20495, at *2 (9th Cir. 2011); Pedroza-Macias

v. Holder, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22599, at *1-2 (9th Cir. 2011); Salgado v. Holder, 436 Fed. Appx.

751, 751 (9th Cir. 2011); Ruano-Sandoval v. Holder, 416 Fed. Appx. 667, 667 (9th Cir. 2011); see

also Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967, 976 (9th Cir. 2008) (“possession of a controlled substance

with the intent to sell contains a trafficking element and is an aggravated felony”).

II. Motion for Summay Judgment

On January 12, 2012, Petitioner filed a one-page motion for summary judgment. [Doc. No.

10.] Because the Court denies the Petition, Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED

as moot.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the Court DENIES the Petition for writ of habeas corpus, and DENIES

as moot Petitioner’s motion for summary judgment. In addition, the Court notes that a certificate of

appealability is not required in this case. See Forde v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 114 F.3d 878, 879 (9th

Cir. 1997) (finding that a certificate of appealability not required from an order denying a § 2241

petition). The clerk is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 6, 2012 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 5 - 11cv2699-IEG (NLS)

Case 3:11-cv-02699-IEG-NLS Document 12 Filed 02/06/12 Page 5 of 5