Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01272/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01272-2/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

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENIDITO LOTAWA, )

)

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, )

)

)

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:06-cv-01272-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 9)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. 8)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS (Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

On September 15, 2006, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this Court.

On October 30, 2006, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the instant

petition should be dismissed pursuant to the Real ID Act of 2006, or, alternatively, that the sixmonth period of reasonable detention under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), had not yet

commenced, thus making the petition premature. (Doc. 8). On November 8, 2006, the

Magistrate Judge assigned to the case filed a Report and Recommendation recommending the

motion to dismiss be granted and that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. (Doc.

9). This Report and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice that any

Case 1:06-cv-01272-AWI-TAG Document 11 Filed 01/03/07 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

objections were to be filed within thirty days from the date of service of that order. On

December 13, 2006, Petitioner filed his objections. (Doc. 10). 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted

a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that

the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper

analysis. Petitioner's objections present no grounds for questioning the Magistrate Judge's

analysis. As explained by the Magistrate Judge, the exclusive place of Plaintiff to challenge his

final order of removal, deportation, or exclusion is in the Ninth Circuit. 28 U.S.C. § 1252. To

the extent Petitioner now wishes to contend that his detention is unlawful under Zadvydas v.

Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), Petitioner will be given leave to file a new action concerning only

his confinement. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation, filed November 8, 2006 (Doc. 9), is

ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8), is GRANTED;

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. 1), is DISMISSED with prejudice as

to Petitioner’s claims concerning removal, deportation, and exclusion;

4. Petitioner is given leave to file a new action concerning claims of unlawful

detention; and

5. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close the file. 

This order terminates the action in its entirety. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 30, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01272-AWI-TAG Document 11 Filed 01/03/07 Page 2 of 2