Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00194/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00194-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Dilma Leticia Salguero-Morales, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Janet Napolitano, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 09-0194-PHX-MHM (JRI)

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s Motion for Injunctive Relief (Emergency

Temporary Restraining Order) (Doc. #28) seeking an immediate stay of removal and an order

compelling Respondents to immediately release her. The Court will deny the Motion without

prejudice.

I. Request for Immediate Stay of Removal

This is Petitioner’s second request for an emergency stay of removal. Petitioner’s

prior request was denied because Petitioner failed to serve her request on Respondents and

because she failed to demonstrate that she would suffer irreparable injury before Respondents

could be heard in this matter. (Doc. #6.) But the prior request was denied without prejudice

and Respondents were required to file and serve a “Notice of Intent to Remove” if they

intended to remove Petitioner from the United States prior to the Court’s disposition of this

case. (Doc. #6 at 3-4.) Respondents have appeared and have answered the Petition, but they

have not filed a “Notice of Intent to Remove.”

Case 2:09-cv-00194-MHM-JRI Document 29 Filed 06/24/09 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 standard for a stay of removal requires consideration of four factors: “‘(1)

whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the

merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether

issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and

(4) where the public interest lies.’” Nken v. Holder, 129 S. Ct. 1749, 1756 (2009) (quoting

Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)). The petitioner bears the burden of

persuasion. Id. “The first two factors . . . are the most critical.” Id. It is not enough for a

petitioner to show “a mere ‘possibility’ of relief” to satisfy the first factor. Id. Nor is it

enough for a petitioner to “simply show[] some ‘possibility of irreparable injury’” in order

to satisfy the second factor. Id. (Quoting Abbassi v.INS, 143 F.3d 513, 514 (9th Cir. 1998)).

The Court will deny Petitioner’s request for a stay of removal because she has failed

to demonstrate that she will suffer an irreparable injury in the absence of a stay. Cf.

Associated Gen. Contractors of Calif. v. Coalition for Economic Equity, 950 F.2d 1401, 1410

(9th Cir. 1991) (“A plaintiff must do more than merely allege imminent harm sufficient to

establish standing, he or she must demonstrate immediate threatened injury as a prerequisite

to preliminary injunctive relief.”) Respondents are under a continuing obligation to file a

“Notice of Intent to Remove” if they intend to remove Petitioner from the United States

before her habeas corpus petition can be resolved. In the absence of a declaration of intent

to remove from Respondents, it is apparent that Petitioner’s removal is not imminent.

Moreover, if her status changes, Respondents are required to serve a “Notice of Intent to

Remove” with sufficient time to permit Petitioner to file a proper motion for a temporary

restraining order. Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for a stay of removal will be denied

without prejudice.

II. Request for Immediate Release from Detention

Petitioner also seeks an temporary restraining order directing Respondents to

immediately release her from detention. Petitioner’s requests for expedited release, however,

is essentially a restatement of the ultimate request for relief presented in her Petition. Every

habeas corpus petition necessarily alleges the same basic ground for relief, i.e., that the

Case 2:09-cv-00194-MHM-JRI Document 29 Filed 06/24/09 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 -

petitioner is being detained in violation of the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United

States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Only when it is clear on the face of a petition that exceptional

circumstances require immediate review of a petitioner’s claims will consideration of his

petition be advanced at the expense of prior, pending petitions. Upon the record currently

before the Court, it is not plain that the merits of Petitioner’s claims are so strong as to

warrant either expedited adjudication or immediate release from custody. See In re Roe, 257

F.3d 1077, 1081 (9th Cir. 2001) (declining to resolve issue of whether a district court has the

authority to release a prisoner pending resolution of a habeas case, but holding that if such

authority does exist, it can only be exercised in an “extraordinary case involving special

circumstances”). Accordingly, Petitioner’s request for immediate release will be denied.

IT IS ORDERED that the reference to Magistrate Judge Jay R. Irwin of Petitioner’s

Motion for Injunctive Relief (Emergency Temporary Restraining Order (Doc. #28) is

withdrawn. All other matters in this case remain pending before Magistrate Judge Jay R.

Irwin.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Injunctive Relief

(Emergency Temporary Restraining Order) (Doc. #28) is denied without prejudice.

DATED this 24th day of June, 2009.

Case 2:09-cv-00194-MHM-JRI Document 29 Filed 06/24/09 Page 3 of 3