Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01141/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01141-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE RAMAC No. CIV S-06-1141-MCE-CMK-P

CASTRONUEVO,

Petitioner, 

vs. ORDER

THOMAS LONG,

Respondent.

 /

Petitioner, a prisoner proceeding with counsel, brings this petition for a writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. On October 4, 2007, the undersigned issued

findings and recommendations that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be granted. On

December 14, 2007, the district judge issued an order adopting the findings and

recommendations in full and referring the matter back to the undersigned for further proceedings

to determine an appropriate remedy. The court hereby will set a briefing schedule on the issue of

an appropriate remedy. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01141-MCE -CMK Document 31 Filed 12/19/07 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

2

In a typical habeas corpus case, where the petitioner is in state custody pursuant to

a state court criminal judgment, a federal court granting habeas corpus relief would issue a

conditional release order directing the warden of the state prison to release the petitioner unless,

within a reasonable time, the state corrects the constitutional violation by providing a new trial. 

This case, however, is not the typical case in that petitioner challenges a state court judgment but

is in federal custody. As outlined in the findings and recommendations, there appear to be at

least two possible options. Specifically, the court stated:

As to an appropriate remedy, the court finds that petitioner

should be put in the position he would be in had the state court not

violated his constitutional rights. In other words, based on the conclusion

reached above that petitioner was denied an opportunity to be heard in the

California Court of Appeal with respect to the alternative writ which the

California Supreme Court directed the Court of Appeal to issue, it would

seem that petitioner should be allowed such an opportunity. It is unclear,

however, whether this court has the power to direct the California Court of

Appeal to do what it should have done in the first place – issue an

alternative writ and provide the parties an opportunity to brief the case and

be heard at oral argument. 

Another possible solution would be to issue judgment along

the lines suggested by petitioner. Specifically, this court could issue a

conditional order directing that respondent – the warden at the federal

immigration detention facility and over whom this court has jurisdiction –

to release petitioner within a certain period of time unless the Court of

Appeal issues the alternative writ and provides petitioner an opportunity to

be heard. This would leave the state courts free to act – or not to act – as

they see fit. This approach is somewhat troubling, however, given that it

tends to penalize the federal government, which has an interest in ongoing

removal proceedings, even though it has done nothing to violate

petitioner’s constitutional rights. 

A third possible option would be to vacate the criminal judgment unless the California Court of

Appeal issues the alternative writ as originally directed by the California Supreme Court. Again,

the court is uncertain whether it has the power to do so given that the state is not a party to this

action. Other options may also exist.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-01141-MCE -CMK Document 31 Filed 12/19/07 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

3

As a starting point, the court notes that 28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides that the federal

habeas court “. . . shall . . . dispose of the matter as law and justice require.” See also In re

Bonner, 151 U.S. 242, 261 (1894). The parties are directed to brief what possible remedies are

available to petitioner in light of this court’s grant of habeas corpus relief. The court is mindful

that respondent will likely take the position that this court should not grant habeas corpus relief at

all and that, therefore, no remedy is available. That argument, however, is for the Court of

Appeals to resolve if respondent decides to appeal this court’s final judgment. Therefore, in

presenting his arguments, respondent is directed to assume for the time being that some kind of

habeas relief is appropriate. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within 20 days of the date of service of this order, petitioner shall file a

brief addressing the appropriate remedy; 

2. Within 20 days after service of petitioner’s brief, respondent shall file a

response; and

3. Within 10 days after service of respondent’s response, petitioner may file a

reply.

DATED: December 18, 2007

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01141-MCE -CMK Document 31 Filed 12/19/07 Page 3 of 3