Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02347/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02347-0/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

CHAVARRIA SERGIO ANTONIO,

Petitioner,

v.

JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of

Department of Homeland Security; et al.

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 11cv2347 JAH(WMc)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

[28 U.S.C. § 2241]

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner Chavarria Sergio Antonio (“petitioner”), appearing pro se, filed a petition

for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition has been fully

briefed. After a careful review of the record, and for the reasons set forth below, this Court

DISMISSES the petition for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner, a native and citizen of Nicaragua, became a lawful permanent resident

of the United States on November 16, 1989. After his conviction in 2007 for second

degree burglary and forgery, on September 28, 2008, petitioner was placed in removal

proceedings upon completion of his criminal sentence. Petitioner was then, on June 3,

2009, ordered removed from the United States to Nicaragua by an immigration judge

(“IJ”). The removal order was appealed and the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”)

affirmed the IJ’s decision on September 11, 2009. Petitioner filed a petition for review

11cv2347

Case 3:11-cv-02347-JAH-NLS Document 11 Filed 06/27/13 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

before the Ninth Circuit and requested a stay of removal which resulted in an automatic

stay. The IJ, on November 25, 2009, denied petitioner’s request to be released on bond. 

While his petition for review before the Ninth Circuit was pending, petitioner

sought to reopen his case before the BIA but the BIA denied that motion on March 11,

2010. Petitioner subsequently filed a new petition for review before the Ninth Circuit. 

Petitioner also filed various motions before the BIA seeking to reopen his proceedings, all

were summarily denied.

The instant petition was filed on October 22, 2011. On February 12, 2012,

respondent informed petitioner of his “potential administrative right to request a new

bond hearing” pursuant to Casas Castrillon v. DHS, 535 F.3d 942, 949 (9th Cir. 2008)

and 8 C.F.R. § 1003,19(e), explaining the procedures for seeking such relief. Petitioner’s

last petition before the Ninth Circuit was remanded to the BIA on March 30, 2012. 

Thereafter, respondent filed a return to the petition and petitioner filed a traverse. 

Nothing further has been filed in this case.

DISCUSSION

The instant petition seeks petitioner’s release from custody on bond pending

completion of removal proceedings on the grounds that he is being held in violation of his

constitutional right to due process. See Doc. # 1 at 6. Respondent contends that, because

petitioner has already been afforded a Casas Castrillon custody hearing and has been

informed of this right to seek a new hearing pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19, there is no

case or controversy for this Court to review. Doc. # 8 at 3 (citing Casas Castrillon, 535

F.3d at 949 (once administrative proceedings before the IJ and the BIA are completed and

the alien respondent has petitioned for review and obtained a stay of removal before the

circuit court, detention authority shifts from 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) (mandatory detention)

to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) (IJ jurisdiction to conduct custody review)); Spencer v. Kemna, 523

U.S. 1, 7 (1998)(plaintiff must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury to

satisfy the injury requirement for subject matter jurisdiction)). 

2 11cv2347

Case 3:11-cv-02347-JAH-NLS Document 11 Filed 06/27/13 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

Petitioner does not address this issue in his traverse but, instead, focuses on the

merits of his claim that he is being held in violation of his constitutional right to due

process. See Doc. # 10 at 2-9. This Court, after a careful consideration of the record, and

based on the authority cited by respondent, finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to

review plaintiff’s claim because petitioner has received all the relief he is due under

controlling law and, thus, has failed to demonstrate he has suffered or, will suffer, an

injury. See Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7. Therefore, this Court DISMISSES the instant petition

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant petition filed

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Dated: June 27, 2013

 

JOHN A. HOUSTON

United States District Judge

3 11cv2347

Case 3:11-cv-02347-JAH-NLS Document 11 Filed 06/27/13 Page 3 of 3