Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02267/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02267-0/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

- 1 - 07cv2267 WQH (POR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SYLVESTER OWINO,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07cv2267 WQH (POR)

ORDER

vs.

JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the

Department of Homeland Security, et al.,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is Petitioner’s Ex Parte Motion to Amend Order to Hold

Immigration Bond Hearing (Doc. # 66).

BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Kenya who was admitted to the United States on a

student visa in 1998 (Doc. # 1). Petitioner was convicted of robbery in 2003 and was ordered

removed by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) (Doc. # 1). The Board of Immigration Appeals

(“BIA”) affirmed that ruling (Doc. # 1). Petitioner has been in immigration detention since

November 8, 2005 (Doc. # 1). On December 3, 2007, Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this Court (Doc. #1). This Court denied his

petition on August 6, 2008 (Doc. # 28). Petitioner appealed both his immigration case and this

Case 3:07-cv-02267-WQH-POR Document 68 Filed 10/09/09 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

- 2 - 07cv2267 WQH (POR)

Court’s decision to the Ninth Circuit (Doc. # 30). Owino v. Napolitano, __ F.3d __, No. 08-

5632 (9th Cir. Aug. 4, 2009). Because Petitioner’s CAT claim was remanded for further

proceedings, the Ninth Circuit remanded his petition to this Court to determine whether

detention is authorized under § 1226(a). Id. at 6-9. On remand, this Court ordered a hearing

pursuant to Zavydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 801 (2001) and ordered Respondents to provide

Petitioner a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) within 30 days (Doc. # 57). 

A hearing was held before an IJ on October 5, 2009 (Doc. # 66). Owino appeared pro

se and requested a continuance until October 26, 27, or 28, 2009 to allow his pro bono

immigration counsel to prepare for the hearing (Doc. # 66). The IJ refused to continue the

hearing beyond October 21, 2009, because he interpreted this Court’s order to require the

completion of the bond hearing within 30 days (Doc. # 66). Petitioner then filed a motion in

this Court to amend or clarify the order requiring a bond hearing (Doc. # 66). Petitioner argues

that his right to a procedurally fair bond hearing requires delaying the bond hearing to allow

his pro bono attorney to adequately prepare and present his case (Doc. # 66). IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion to Amend Order to Hold a Bond Hearing is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the IJ may grant reasonable and necessary continuances

beyond this Court’s original thirty-day deadline for good cause shown.

DATED: October 9, 2009

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02267-WQH-POR Document 68 Filed 10/09/09 Page 2 of 2