Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00374/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00374-1/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 (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

Respondents argue, because the Government filed a petition for rehearing en banc

challenging the Ninth Circuit's decision in Diouf, and because the mandate has not yet

issued, the holding in that case is not clearly binding law of the Circuit. The Court is not

persuaded. As recognized by Respondents, the Ninth Circuit has previously held that its

1 11CV374-BTM (WVG)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GILBERTO G. ROSSATTY,

Petitioner,

Case No. 11CV374-BTM (WVG)

ORDER RE PETITION FOR

v. HABEAS CORPUS

JANET NAPOLITANO, et al.,

Respondents.

Petitioner seeks two forms of habeas relief: either (1) an order of release under

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), or (2) an order directing Respondents to afford him

a bond hearing under Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir. 2011). In his traverse,

Petitioner properly concedes that Zadvydas-type relief is not available because Respondents

have obtained travel documents and are prepared to immediately remove Petitioner once

judicial proceedings are complete. See Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1063 (9th

Cir. 2008).

Petitioner is also not entitled to a bond hearing under Diouf. Aliens who face a

prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) while challenging a removal order are

entitled to a bond hearing unless removal is imminent. Diouf v. Napolitano, 634 F.3d 1081,

1091-1092 (9th Cir. 2011).1

Case 3:11-cv-00374-BTM-WVG Document 16 Filed 09/15/11 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 opinions become binding precedent regardless of whether a mandate has issued. See

Hoeun Yong v. Ins, 208 F.3d 1116, 1119 n.2 (9th Cir. 2000). 

2 11CV374-BTM (WVG)

On July 8, 2011, the Ninth Circuit denied in part and dismissed in part Petitioner’s

remaining petitions for review and held that the temporary stay of removal will terminate upon

issuance of the mandate. Rossaty v. Holder, 11-70316, 11-71146 (9th Cir. July 8, 2011).

The court summarily denied the consolidated petitions in part “because the questions raised

are so insubstantial as not to require further argument.” Id. 

Docket entries indicate that Petitioner filed motions for reconsideration on July 25,

2011, August 18, 2011, and August 19, 2011. A mandate will issue within seven days of an

order denying Petitioner’s motions for reconsideration. Ninth Cir. R. 41-2. At that point,

Respondents can immediately remove Petitioner.

Under these circumstances, the Court concludes that removal is imminent. The Ninth

Circuit disfavors motions for reconsideration. Cir. Advisory Comm. Note to Rule 27-10. The

court summarily denied Petitioner’s remaining petitions and provided no indication that his

claims raised close questions. Petitioner, in turn, does not assert that there is any likelihood

that the Ninth Circuit will reconsider its order. See Dock. #15. Accordingly, Petitioner is not

entitled to a bond hearing. Petitioner’s habeas petition is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 14, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00374-BTM-WVG Document 16 Filed 09/15/11 Page 2 of 2