Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01471/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01471-0/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

Oluwagbolade Omidire, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Alberto Gonzales, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1471-PHX-SMM (ECV)

ORDER

Petitioner Oluwagbolade Omidire (A77-262-782) has filed a pro se Amended Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The filing fee has been paid. The

Court will require Respondents to answer the Amended Petition.

I. Amended Petition

On June 8, 2005, an immigration judge entered an order for Petitioner’s removal from

the United States. On October 31, 2005, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed

the immigration judge’s decision. Petitioner’s petition for review from the decision of the

BIA is currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

See Omidire v. Gonzales, No. 05-76615 (9th Cir. pet. for review filed Nov. 21, 2005). In an

unpublished order filed on February 13, 2006, the court of appeals granted Petitioner’s

request for a stay of removal. Id. Petitioner alleges that he has been detained by Immigration

and Customs Enforcement since June 4, 2005. Petitioner argues that his lengthy detention

while his removal proceedings have been pending is unlawful.

Case 2:07-cv-01471-SMM Document 4 Filed 08/29/07 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

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

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 will therefore be required.

II. Warnings

A. Address Changes

Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

B. Copies

Petitioner must serve Respondents, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a

copy of every document that he files. FED. R. CIV. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a

certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. FED. R. CIV. P. 5(d). Petitioner also

must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCIV 5.4. Failure to

comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Petitioner.

C. Possible dismissal

If Petitioner fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Summons, Amended Petition (Doc.

#3) 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

Case 2:07-cv-01471-SMM Document 4 Filed 08/29/07 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

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, Amended 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 Amended Petition within 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 20 days from the date of service of the answer.

(4) The matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Edward C. Voss 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 29th day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01471-SMM Document 4 Filed 08/29/07 Page 3 of 3