Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06818/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-06818-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THAI SENG, 02774945,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN OF IMMIGRATION 

DETENTION FACILITY,

Respondent.

Case No. 16-6818 SK (PR) 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

(ECF Nos. 2, 3 & 6)

Petitioner Thai Seng has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing detention by the United States Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center in Elk Grove, 

California. He also seeks appointment of counsel and leave to proceed in forma pauperis

(IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

The petition is properly before the undersigned for initial review because petitioner 

has consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner was born in Cambodia, admitted into the United States in 1986, and is not 

a citizen of the United States. On an unstated date, petitioner was convicted of first degree 

murder. On or about February 24, 2016, petitioner was detained by ICE and has remained 

in ICE custody since that date. On or about May 11, 2016, an Immigration Judge ordered 

Case 3:16-cv-06818-SK Document 9 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

petitioner removed from the United States. Petitioner did not appeal that decision. On or 

about May 16, 2016, petitioner received a decision to continue detention from ICE, and on 

or about August 8, 2016 he received a second such decision to continue detention. 

Petitioner “has cooperated fully with all of ICE’s efforts to remove” him, but ICE has been 

unable to remove him and is unlikely to be able to remove him because Cambodia “is not 

responding most likely they can’t locate[] my birth certificate or other documents for that 

matter.” Pet. (ECF No. 1) at 4.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person 

“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 

U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 

It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause 

why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant 

or person detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 

B. Claims

District courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review habeas petitions 

by non-citizens challenging the lawfulness of their detention. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 

678, 699 (2001). Although 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) authorizes the government to continue to 

detain an alien after entry of a final removal order, it does not permit indefinite detention 

of an alien whose native country will not accept him if he is removed. Id. at 687-88, 697-

98. Once removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer 

authorized by statute. Id. at 699-700. 

Petitioner contends that his continued detention is unlawful under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1231(a)(6) as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Zadvydas. Liberally construed, the 

petition states a cognizable claim for habeas relief under § 2241 based on petitioner’s 

prolonged detention by ICE. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001) 

(federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally).

Case 3:16-cv-06818-SK Document 9 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 4
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Petitioner names five persons as respondents, but only one is needed and only one is 

appropriate. There is generally only one proper respondent for a habeas petition under 28 

U.S.C. § 2241, and that is the person “with the ability to produce the prisoner’s body 

before the habeas court.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004). The 

“longstanding practice” in habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement is 

that the “warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held, not the Attorney General 

or some other remote supervisory official” is the proper respondent. Id. Here, the 

respondent listed as “Warden of Immigration Detention Facility” is the proper respondent. 

The other named respondents are dismissed.

C. Request for Appointment of Counsel

Petitioner’s request for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 2) is DENIED without 

prejudice. See Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th Cir. 1986) (unless an 

evidentiary hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel in habeas corpus 

proceedings is within the discretion of the district court). Petitioner adequately presented 

his claim for relief in the petition. Accord Bashor v. Risley, 730 F.2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir. 

1984) (although petitioner had no background in law, denial of appointment of counsel 

within discretion of district court where petitioner clearly presented issues in petition and 

accompanying memorandum). The court will appoint counsel on its own motion if an 

evidentiary hearing is later required. See Knaubert, 791 F.2d at 728 (appointment of 

counsel mandatory if evidentiary hearing is required). 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner’s request to proceed IFP (ECF Nos. 3 & 6) is GRANTED.

2. The clerk shall serve (1) a copy of this order, (2) the petition and all 

attachments thereto, and (3) a notice of assignment of prisoner case to a United States 

magistrate judge and accompanying magistrate judge jurisdiction consent or declination to 

consent form (requesting that respondent consent or decline to consent within 28 days of 

receipt of service), on respondent (Warden of Immigration Detention Facility at Rio 

Case 3:16-cv-06818-SK Document 9 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 4
4

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

Northern District of California

Cosumnes Correctional Center) and respondent’s attorney, the United States Attorney for 

the Northern District of California, and the Attorney General of the United States in 

Washington, D.C. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this order on petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with the court and serve on petitioner, within 60 days 

of the issuance of this order, an answer responding to the allegations in the petition and 

showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. Respondent shall file 

with the answer and serve on petitioner a copy of all documents that are relevant to a 

determination of the issues presented by the petition.

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a 

traverse with the court and serving it on respondent within 30 days of his receipt of the 

answer.

5. Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served 

on respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to respondent’s counsel. Petitioner 

also must keep the court and all parties informed of any change of address.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2017 _________________________

SALLIE KIM

 United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:16-cv-06818-SK Document 9 Filed 01/12/17 Page 4 of 4