Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01368/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-01368-0/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

WO JKM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jose Everardo Cabrera-Gonzalez, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., 

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-1368-PHX-GMS (DKD)

ORDER

Petitioner Jose Everardo Cabrera-Gonzalez (A027-146-701), who is confined in the

Pinal County Jail in Florence, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

(Doc. 3). The Court will grant the Application and dismiss the Petition for lack of

jurisdiction.

Petitioner challenges his 1985 removal order. He argues that the Immigration Judge

improperly prevented him from filing an application for asylum. Petitioner seeks an order

vacating his 1985 removal order “and any reinstatement orders that followed as a direct result

of [his] original removal order.” (Doc. 1 at 9.) The Court lacks jurisdiction to consider

Petitioner’s claims.

Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005),

the district courts do not have habeas corpus jurisdiction to review an order of removal. Iasu

v. Smith 511 F.3d 881, 886 (9th Cir. 2007). The REAL ID Act amended 8 U.S.C.

Case 2:10-cv-01368-GMS--DKD Document 6 Filed 08/30/10 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

- 2 -

§ 1252(a)(5) to provide that “a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals

in accordance this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an

order of removal entered or issued under any provision of this [Act]”). 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(5). This Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s challenge to his

1985 removal order.

Subsection106(c) of the REAL ID Act provides that if any § 2241 habeas corpus case

“challenging a final administrative order of removal . . . is pending in a district court on

the date of enactment, then the district court shall transfer the case . . . to the [appropriate]

court of appeals.” REAL ID Act §106(c) (emphasis added). This action, however, cannot

be transferred under § 106(c) of the REAL ID Act because it was not pending in this Court

on the date of enactment. See Iasu 511 F.3d at 888-89. Accordingly, the Petition will be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc.

3) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1)

and this action are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court must enter

judgment accordingly.

DATED this 30th day of August, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-01368-GMS--DKD Document 6 Filed 08/30/10 Page 2 of 2