Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00249/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-00249-0/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

JDDL

WO JKM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Custodio Sanchez Lugo, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Michael Chertoff, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-0249-PHX-SMM (JJM)

ORDER

Petitioner Custodio Sanchez Lugo, who is represented by counsel, has filed a Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Petition will be dismissed with

leave to amend.

I. Petition

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico who entered the United States in 1968.

In 1987, Petitioner was convicted of committing a lewd and lascivious act with a child under

fourteen years of age in violation of § 288(a) of the California Penal Code. Petitioner was

sentenced to five years probation. On July 30, 1996, Petitioner was sentenced to three years

imprisonment for violation of his California probation. 

 On May 12, 1996, Petitioner was granted lawful permanent resident status. On July

28, 2006, Petitioner was taken into custody by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

and held in detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226. The DHS charged that Petitioner was

removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(A) as an alien who was inadmissible under thenexisting law when his status was adjusted. The DHS alleged that Petitioner was inadmissible

Case 2:08-cv-00249-SMM--JR Document 11 Filed 04/28/08 Page 1 of 4
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

JDDL - 2 -

under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) as an alien who has been convicted of a crime of moral

turpitude and under 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(i) as an alien who procured admission into the

United States by fraud or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact. Petitioner alleges that

his immigration proceedings are still pending before an Immigration Judge (IJ).

On October 3, 2006, following a bond redetermination hearing, the IJ denied

Petitioner’s request for release from custody. On December 15, 2006, the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed the IJ’s bond determination. On February 7, 2007, the

IJ denied Petitioner’s second request for a bond redetermination hearing. In his Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus filed with this Court, Petitioner contends that the IJ “abused his

discretion in weighing the proper factors to be considered in determining whether [Petitioner

should be released on bond].” (Doc. #1 at 7-8.)

II. Summary Dismissal

The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases may be applied to habeas corpus petitions

other than those brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases. Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, promptly after

the filing of a petition for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a preliminary review of

the petition to determine whether “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any

attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4,

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (“A . . . judge entertaining

an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order

directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears

from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.”) (emphasis

added). If the Petitioner is not entitled to relief, the petition must be summarily dismissed

under Rule 4. Obremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990) (affirming district

court’s summary dismissal as a matter of law, but relying upon Rule 4 rather than Rule

12(b)(6)). Notice pleading is insufficient — the pleader must “state facts that point to a ‘real

possibility of constitutional error.’” Obremski, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v.

Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977)).

Case 2:08-cv-00249-SMM--JR Document 11 Filed 04/28/08 Page 2 of 4
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

JDDL - 3 -

Under Rule 4, district courts must take “an active role in summarily disposing of

facially defective petitions.” Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998). This

summary dismissal power, however, is not without limits. Id. at 1128. A court must give

a petitioner notice and an opportunity to respond to the argument for dismissal. Id.; accord

Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2001). Because the Court finds that

Petitioner’s application is facially defective, the Petition will be dismissed with leave to file

an amended petition within thirty days.

III. Habeas Corpus Jurisdiction Over Discretionary Decisions

The REAL ID Act of 2005 does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction because the Act

was “not intended to ‘preclude habeas review over challenges to detention that are

independent of challenges to removal orders.’” Hernandez v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 42, 42-43

(1st Cir. 2005) (quoting H.R. Cong. Rep. No. 109-72, at 2873 (2005)); See also Nadarajah

v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2006) (“By its terms, the jurisdiction-stripping

provision [of the REAL ID Act] does not apply to federal habeas corpus petitions that do not

involve final orders of removal.”). But “[t]he scope of habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 is limited to claims that allege constitutional or statutory error.” Singh v. Ashcroft,

351 F.3d 435, 439 (9th Cir. 2003). Habeas corpus jurisdiction does not extend to review of

purely discretionary administrative decisions. Gutierrez-Chavez v. INS, 298 F.3d 824, 828

(9th Cir. 2002). While the writ of habeas corpus is available to claim that the INS exercised

its discretion in violation of federal law or the Constitution, it “is not available to claim that

the INS simply came to an unwise, yet lawful, conclusion when it . . . exercise[d] its

discretion.” Id. 

Petitioner does not claim that the decision to detain him somehow violated

constitutional or statutory law. Rather, Petitioner’s sole claim for relief is that the

“Immigration Judge abused his discretion in weighing the proper factors to be considered

in determining” whether to release him on bond. (Doc. #1 at 7-8) (emphasis added). The

Court lacks habeas corpus jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s claim that the IJ abused his

Case 2:08-cv-00249-SMM--JR Document 11 Filed 04/28/08 Page 3 of 4
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

JDDL - 4 -

discretion in refusing to release him on bond. See Gutierrez-Chavez, 298 F.3d at 828.

Accordingly, the Petition will be dismissed with leave to file an amended petition. 

The Clerk will be directed to enter a judgment of dismissal of this action if Petitioner

fails to timely file an amended petition correcting the deficiencies identified in this Order.

Because Respondents have been served, but have not yet appeared in this action, the Clerk

will also be directed to mail the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona an

informational copy of this Order.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) The Petition (Doc. #1) is dismissed with leave to amend. Petitioner must file

an amended petition within 30 days of the date this Order is filed.

(2) That the Clerk of Court must enter a judgment of dismissal of this action,

without prejudice and without further notice to Petitioner, if Petitioner fails to file an

amended petition within 30 days of the date this Order is filed.

(3) That the Clerk of Court must mail a copy of this Order to the United States

Attorney for the District of Arizona, to the attention of Ronald R. Gallegos.

DATED this 28th day of April, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-00249-SMM--JR Document 11 Filed 04/28/08 Page 4 of 4