Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00179/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00179-0/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

CHARLES A. FORDJOUR,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN ASHCROFT, et. al.,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-00179 REC DLB HC

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER’S

COUNSEL TO FILE NOTICE OF

APPEARANCE AND DIRECTING COUNSEL

TO FILE RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT’S

NOTICE FILED MAY 24, 2005

[Doc. 16]

Petitioner is detained by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“BICE”)

and is proceeding with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Petitioner filed the instant petition on February 9, 2005. On March 3, 2005, Petitioner

filed a motion to stay the final order of deportation. On March 9, 2005, the undersigned issued

an order appointing counsel for Petitioner and on March 10, 2005, Judge Coyle granted

Petitioner’s request to stay the final order of deportation pending the outcome of the instant

petition. On March 16, 2005, the undersigned issued an order to show cause why the petition

should not be granted. On May 3, 2005, Respondent filed a request for an extension of time to

file a response to the petition. Then on May 24, 2005, Respondent filed a notice of applicability

of The Real ID Act of 2005, Public Law 109-13.

///

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00179-LJO-DLB Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 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

1

 It should be noted that Petitioner, himself, has filed several documents with this Court after counsel was

appointed to represent him including, an amended petition on April 20, 2005; a request to appoint counsel on April

25, 2005; notice of service pursuant to Rule 5-135 on May 2, 2005; and an emergency motion for judicial notice on

May 12, 2005. (Court Docs. 11, 12, 13, 15.) 

2

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

petition for review could have been properly filed under section 242(b)92) 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 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. § 1251(b)(2).

2

In its May 3, 2005, request for an extension of time, Respondent indicates that Katherine

Hart has been appointed to represent Petitioner in this case. However, to date no notice of

appearance has been filed by Ms. Hart.1 

As Respondent submits in its notice of May 24, 2005, pursuant to section 106, a petition

for review to the courts of appeal is the exclusive means of review of an administrative order of

removal, deportation, or exclusion. Id. §106(a). Section 106(c) provides that any habeas corpus

petition pending in 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.

2

 When a case pending in district court contains both challenges to an order of

removal, deportation, or exclusion and to a non-removal 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. The amendments to section 242 apply to all cases in which a final

administrative order of removal has been entered before, on, or after the date of enactment. Id. §

106(a). 

Respondent submits that Petitioner challenges only the final administrative order of

removal, and therefore, pursuant to section 106(c) of the Real ID Act, this Court must transfer the

case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Petitioner has not yet filed a response to

Respondent’s contention. 

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within ten (10) days from the date of service of this order, counsel for Petitioner

shall file a notice of appearance; and

Case 1:05-cv-00179-LJO-DLB Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 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

 The Court notes that all filings in this action are available to the parties through the court’s electronic case

filing system (“CM/ECF”). 

3

2. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Petitioner, through

appointed counsel, shall file a response to Respondent’s May 24, 2005, notice to

the Court.3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00179-LJO-DLB Document 17 Filed 06/10/05 Page 3 of 3