Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00685/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00685-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:1361 Petition for Writ of Mandamus

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-0685 RS (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

*E-Filed 5/29/15*

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

ALEJANDRO GONZALEZ,

Petitioner,

v.

THE UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION

COURT, et al., 

Respondents. /

No. C 15-0685 RS (PR)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

WRIT OF MANDAMUS

INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, asks this Court to issue a writ of

mandamus to compel the United States Immigration Court (“USIC”) and the other

respondents to address his demand for a hearing on an immigration detainer filed against

him. Petitioner fails to show that he is entitled to such a writ, and the petition is DENIED.

BACKGROUND

According to the petition, in 1982 petitioner was convicted in the Los Angeles

Superior Court of robbery, and kidnapping for the purposes of committing another felony

listed in the statute. (Pet. at 10.) He was sentenced to life with the possibility of parole, plus

Case 3:15-cv-00685-RS Document 5 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-0685 RS (PR)

2 ORDER DENYING PETITION

10 years and 4 months in state prison. (Id.) Petitioner alleges that in 1991 or 1992 an “INS

hold” was placed on him. (Id.) He further alleges that in 2014 he filed with USIC in San

Francisco a notice and demand for a trial on the detainer. (Id. at 3.) So far, neither the USIC,

nor the other respondents, has not acted on his demand. Petitioner alleges that he has the

right to such a trial under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers and Speedy Trial Act

(“IAD”). 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of

mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to

perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” 28 U.S.C. § 1361. Mandamus relief is an

extraordinary remedy, however. It is available to compel a federal officer to perform a duty

only under certain circumstances. See Fallini v. Hodel, 783 F.2d 1343, 1345 (9th Cir. 1986). 

DISCUSSION

The IAD “provides for the speedy disposition of detainers based on untried

indictments, informations, or complaints,” that is, for the speedy disposition of criminal

charges. Argiz v. United State Immigration, 704 F.2d 384, 387 (7th Cir. 1983). Immigration

deportation proceedings are civil, not criminal, proceedings. Id. Therefore, an immigration

detainer, such as petitioner’s INS hold, is not an “untried indictment, information or

complaint” within the meaning of the IAD. An immigration detainer “merely notifies prison

officials that a decision regarding his removal will be made by [the Department of Homeland

Security] at some future date.” Mendoza v. Immigration and Naturalization Service and

Nevada Attorney General, 2010 WL 5136018, *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 9, 2010) (citing Campillo v.

Sullivan, 853 F.2d 593, 595 (8th Cir. 1988)). Accordingly, petitioner cannot obtain relief

under the IAD. Because the IAD was petitioner’s sole basis for obtaining the writ, he has not

shown that he is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus relief. The petition is

DENIED. 

Case 3:15-cv-00685-RS Document 5 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No. C 15-0685 RS (PR)

3 ORDER DENYING PETITION

Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket Nos. 2 and 4) is

GRANTED. The Clerk shall terminate Docket Nos. 2 and 4, enter judgment in favor of

respondents, and close the file. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 29, 2015 

 RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-00685-RS Document 5 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 3