Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01164/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01164-5/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

MOHAMED SALADDIN MOUSA,

Petitioner,

v.

IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS 

ENFORCEMENT, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01164-LJO-EPG-HC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING 

PETITIONER’S MOTIONS FOR 

DISMISSAL OF DETAINER, DISMISSING

PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 

CORPUS, AND DIRECTING CLERK OF 

COURT TO CLOSE CASE

(ECF Nos. 16, 17, 22, 23, 25)

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging an 

immigration detainer. On October 7 and 10, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 

Recommendations that recommended denying Petitioner’s multiple motions for dismissal of the 

immigration detainer and dismissing the petition. (ECF Nos. 22, 25). These Findings and 

Recommendations were served on Petitioner and contained notice that any objections were to be 

filed within thirty (30) days of the date of service of the findings and recommendation. To date, 

Petitioner has filed no objections, and the time for doing so has passed. 

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 Findings and Recommendation is supported by the record and proper analysis. 

///

Case 1:19-cv-01164-LJO-EPG Document 34 Filed 01/06/20 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

2

The basis of the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation of dismissal was that this Court

lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate a habeas claim challenging Petitioner’s immigration detainer 

because Petitioner was not in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security or 

Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). (ECF No. 22 at 3; ECF No. 25 at 1–2). The 

Court notes that it appears Petitioner has been moved into ICE custody.1 However, “§ 2241 

requires the petitioner to be ‘in custody’ at the time of filing for the federal courts to have 

jurisdiction over a habeas petition.” Smith v. U.S. Customs & Border Prot., 741 F.3d 1016, 1019 

(9th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added) (citing Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1063–64 (9th Cir.

2007)). At the time of filing, Petitioner was in the custody of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the Ninth Circuit has held that a “bare detainer letter alone 

does not sufficiently place an alien in INS custody to make habeas corpus available.” Garcia v. 

Taylor, 40 F.3d 299, 303 (9th Cir. 1994), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in

Campos v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 62 F.3d 311, 314 (9th Cir. 1995). See Zolicoffer 

v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 315 F.3d 538, 540 (5th Cir. 2003) (“Most of the circuit courts that have 

considered the question have held that [an immigration] detainer does not place a prisoner in 

‘custody’ for purposes of habeas proceedings.”)

Moreover, to the extent that Petitioner attempts to litigate any defense to his removal 

proceedings, this Court lacks jurisdiction to address his claims. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) 

(“Judicial review of all questions of law or fact . . . arising from any action taken or proceeding 

brought to remove an alien from the United States . . . shall be available only in judicial review 

of a final order of removal . . . .”); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (“[A] petition for review filed with an 

appropriate court of appeals . . . shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an 

order of removal . . . .”). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on October 7 and 10, 2019 (ECF Nos. 22, 

25) are ADOPTED; 

 

1 This is based on a notice of change of address filed in Petitioner’s other case before this Court, Mousa v. Trump 

Administration, No. 1:19-cv-013490-LJO-SAB.

Case 1:19-cv-01164-LJO-EPG Document 34 Filed 01/06/20 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

2. Petitioner’s motions to dismiss the immigration detainer (ECF Nos. 16, 17, 23) are

DENIED;

3. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED; and

4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01164-LJO-EPG Document 34 Filed 01/06/20 Page 3 of 3