Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01036/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01036-2/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 This information is derived from Petitioner's petition for writ of habeas corpus. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERPREET SINGH WARAICH,

Petitioner,

v.

JOHN ASHCROFT, et al.,

Respondents.

 /

CV F 05-1036 REC SMS HC

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

[Doc. 1]

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 for writ of habeas corpus on August 11, 2005. 

The petition alleges that the continued detention of Petitioner violates Petitioner’s substantive

and procedural due process rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the

Constitution and is a violation of Respondent’s statutory authority. 

FACTUAL SUMMARY1

Petitioner is a native and citizen of India. Petitioner is currently being detained at the

Lerdo Pre-trial Detention Facility in Bakersfield, California. 

On April 27, 2005, an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner deported from the United

States. Petitioner did not appeal the order and he is therefore now subject to a final order of

removal. Petitioner entered the custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Case 1:05-cv-01036-REC -SMS Document 10 Filed 10/19/05 Page 1 of 4
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

The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases can be applied to petitions other than those brought under § 2254 at the 2

Court’s discretion. See, Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

The Supreme Court analyzed the constitutionality of the period of post-removal-detention, not the period 3

of post-removal. See Zadvydas, 121 S.Ct. at 2504.

2

(BICE) (hereinafter “Bureau”) on December 15, 1981.

DISCUSSION

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can

show that “he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A

habeas corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration”

of his confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9 Cir.1991), quoting, Preiser v. th

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules

Governing Section 2254 Cases. However, the petition must “allege facts concerning the

applicant’s commitment or detention,” 28 U.S.C. § 2242, and the Petitioner must make specific

factual allegations that would entitle him to habeas corpus relief if they are true. O’Bremski v.

Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9 Cir.1990); United States v. Poopola, 881 F.2d 811, 812 (9 th th

Cir.1989). 

Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court is required to

make a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. “If it plainly appears from 2

the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief,” the Court must dismiss the

petition. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also, Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d

490 (9th Cir.1990).

In the instant case, Petitioner states that he is being mandatorily and indefinitely detained

by the BICE in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and in violation of

Respondent’s statutory authority. This issue was recently addressed by the Supreme Court in

Zadvydas v. Davis, 121 S.Ct. 2491 (2001). 

In Zadvydas, the U.S. Supreme Court found that the habeas corpus statute grants federal

courts the authority to determine whether post-removal-period detention is pursuant to statutory

authority. Id. at 2491. In addition, the Court held that the Immigration and Nationality Act’s 3

Case 1:05-cv-01036-REC -SMS Document 10 Filed 10/19/05 Page 2 of 4
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

The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Ma v. Reno, 208 F.3d 815, 818 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. granted, 121 S.Ct. 4

297, consolidated with Zadvydas v. Underdown, 185 F.3d 279 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. granted, 2000 WL 38879, was

vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court as resting solely on the “‘absence’ of an ‘extant or pending’ repatriation

agreement without giving due weight to the likelihood of successful future negotiations.” Zadvydas v. Davis,121

S.Ct. 2491 (2001). 

3

(INA) post-removal-period detention statute does not permit indefinite detention but “implicitly

limits an alien’s detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal

from the United States.” Id at 2498. When faced with making such a determination, the Court

must consider “the basic purpose of the statute, namely assuring the alien’s presence at the

moment of removal.” Id. at 2504. In addition, the Court must take appropriate account of the

Executive Branch’s “greater immigration related expertise,” the Bureau’s “administrative needs

and concerns,” and the “Nation’s need to speak with one voice on immigration.” Id. The 4

Supreme Court attempted to limit those occasions when the federal court would need to make

such “difficult judgments” by setting a “presumptively reasonable period of detention” of six

months. Id. at 2505 (italics added). The burden is on the alien to show that there is no

reasonable likelihood of repatriation. Id. ("This 6-month presumption, of course, does not mean

that every alien not removed must be released after six months. To the contrary, an alien may be

held in confinement until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal

in the reasonably foreseeable future."). After six months and once an alien makes a showing that

there is no “significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the

Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” Id. However, where

an alien seeks release prior to the expiration of the presumptive six-month period, his claims are

unripe for federal review. See Akinwale v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050, 1052 (11 Cir. 2002)(“This th

six-month period thus must have expired at the time Akinwale’s § 2241 petition was filed in

order to state a claim under Zadvydas.”); Abbott Laboratories, Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136,

148- 49, 87 S.Ct. 1507 (1967) ("[The ripeness doctrine's] basic rationale is to prevent the courts,

through avoidance of premature adjudication, from entangling themselves in abstract

disagreements over administrative policies, and also to protect the agencies from judicial

interference until an administrative decision has been formalized and its effects felt in a concrete

Case 1:05-cv-01036-REC -SMS Document 10 Filed 10/19/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

way by the challenging parties.").

In this case, Petitioner has remained in the custody of the BICE following an order of

removal since April 27, 2005. Petitioner’s current detention is still within the six month

“presumptively reasonable period of detention.” Id. Petitioner's allegation alone is, therefore,

insufficient to overcome the presumption of reasonableness of the six month period and his

claims of constitutional violations are not ripe for review. Should Petitioner’s detention

continue past the six month presumptive period, he may re-file the instant federal action and

obtain review. At that time, however, Petitioner must provide "good reason to believe that there

is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." Zadvydas, 121 S.Ct.

at 2505. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is HEREBY DISMISSED

WITHOUT PREJUDICE as the claims raised are not ripe for federal review. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 19, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01036-REC -SMS Document 10 Filed 10/19/05 Page 4 of 4