Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00187/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00187-3/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

LEOBARDO U. CHAVEZ-BARRIENTOS,

Petitioner,

v.

U.S. DEP’T OF HOMELAND SECURITY

IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS

ENFORCEMENT,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-0187 AWI DLB HC

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS THE INSTANT PETITION FOR

LACK OF JURISDICTION

[Doc. 7]

Petitioner is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2241.

 Petitioner filed the instant petition on February 11, 2005. On January 4, 2006,

Respondent filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the instant petition is premature and filed in

the wrong forum. Petitioner filed an opposition on January 19, 2006. 

DISCUSSION

On May 11, 2005, the President signed into law the “Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations Act for Defense, The Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005.” 

Division B of the Act is titled “REAL ID Act of 2005.” Section 106 of the REAL ID Act

amends portions of section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (hereinafter “INA”), 8

U.S.C. § 1251, and clarifies the scope of judicial review of removal orders. Pursuant to section

106 of the REAL ID Act, a petition for review to the court of appeals is the exclusive means of

Case 1:05-cv-00187-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 02/27/06 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

 Section 106(c) defines the appropriate transferee court as the “court of appeals for the circuit in which a 1

petition for review could have been properly filed under section 242(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8

U.S.C. 1252), as amended by this section, or under section 309(c)(4)(D) of the Illegal Immigration reform and

Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note).” Section 242(b)(2) of the INA defines the proper venue

for a petition for review as “the judicial circuit in which the immigration judge completed the [underlying

immigration] proceedings.” INA § 242(b)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(2). 

 As the Court does not have jurisdiction to review the instant petition, the Court makes no ruling on 2

whether the instant petition is premature, as Respondent argues.

2

review of an administrative order of removal, deportation, or exclusion. Id. at § 106(a). Section

106(c) provides that any habeas corpus petition pending in the district court in which an alien

challenges a final administrative order of removal, deportation, or exclusion shall be transferred

by the district court to the appropriate court of appeals. When a case pending in the district 1

court contains both challenges to an order of removal, deportation, or exclusion and to a nonremoval order issue, the district court shall transfer to the court of appeals “the part of the case

that challenges the order of removal, deportation, or exclusion.” Id. 

In the instant petition, Petitioner challenges the prior order of removal in that he claims it

is invalid on the ground that he is a citizen of the United States and not subject to deportation,

and that he is therefore entitled to a hearing prior to the reinstatement of that order. (Petition, at

3-5; Opposition, at 2, Exhibits A & B.) As Petitioner is challenging a final order of removal, this

Court does not have jurisdiction to review the petition and it must be transferred to the Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

2

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the instant petition for

writ of habeas corpus be transferred to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as a Petition for

Review and Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted on that ground only.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the assigned United States

District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-

304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of

California. Within fifteen (15) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

Case 1:05-cv-00187-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 02/27/06 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

3

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the objections

shall be served and filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after

service of the objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951

F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 26, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00187-AWI-DLB Document 9 Filed 02/27/06 Page 3 of 3