Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00829/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-00829-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GERARDO PACHECO-ESCOBAR,

Petitioner,

Case No. 14-cv-829-BAS(KSC)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

[ECF No. 1]

v.

UNNAMED RESPONDENTS,

Respondent.

On April 7, 2014, Petitioner Gerardo Pacheco-Escobar, who is proceeding pro

se, filed a motion for “a stay of removal pending resolution of the petition for review

that he filed with this court on 03-31-14.” (ECF No. 1.) This motion was entered onto

the docket as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, presumably under 28 U.S.C. §

2241. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) opposes on behalf of

Respondent Unnamed Respondents.

For the following reasons, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner’s motion for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

- 1 - 14cv829

Case 3:14-cv-00829-BAS-KSC Document 14 Filed 06/30/14 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

I. BACKGROUND

On January 18, 2013, Petitioner was detained by ICE and placed in removal

proceedings. (Clark Decl. Exs. A–B.) ICE charged Petitioner with removability as a

citizen of Mexico who was “an alien present in the United States without being

admitted or paroled, or who arrived in the United States at any time or place other than

as designated by the Attorney General.” (Clark Decl. Ex. B.) On March 7, 2013,

Petitioner was afforded a bond redetermination hearing before an Immigration Judge

(“IJ”), who granted Petitioner’s request for bond and set it in the amount of $25,000. 

(Clark Decl. Ex. C.) Petitioner then filed an untimely appeal of the bond decision

before the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). (Clark Decl. Ex. D.)

On June 27, 2013, an IJ denied Petitioner’s applications for relief from removal

and ordered him removed to Mexico. (Clark Decl. Ex. E.) Petitioner appealed that

decision, but the BIA agreed with the IJ that Petitioner “did not establish that the

hardship his children would suffer would be substantially different fromor beyond that

which would normally be expected upon a parent’s removal.” (Clark Decl. Ex. F.) 

Consequently, on October 16, 2013, the BIA found that Petitioner “has not

demonstrated eligibility for the relief he seeks,” and dismissed the appeal. (Id.) On

November 4, 2013, Petitioner filed a petition for review of the BIA’s decision

dismissing his appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals along with a request for

a stay of removal, which resulted in an automatic temporary stay of removal. (Clark

Decl. Ex. G.)

On December 11, 2013, Petitioner was afforded a custody-redetermination

hearing before an IJ pursuant to Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013). 

(Clark Decl. Ex. H.) The IJ denied Petitioner’s request on the grounds that it lacked

jurisdiction. (See id.) On March 5, 2013, the BIA “affirm[ed], without opinion, the

result of the decision below[,]” and stated that “[t]he decision below is, therefore, the

final agency determination.” (Clark Decl. Ex. I.)

//

- 2 - 14cv829

Case 3:14-cv-00829-BAS-KSC Document 14 Filed 06/30/14 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

On February 25, 2014, the Ninth Circuit dismissed Petitioner’s petition for

review for “lack[] of jurisdiction over a discretionary decision regarding exceptional

and extremely unusual hardship,” and because Petitioner “has failed to raise a colorable

constitutional or legal claim to invoke our jurisdiction over this petition for review.” 

(Clark Decl. Ex. J.) The Ninth Circuit added that the temporary stay of removal will

terminate upon issuance of the mandate. (Id.)

On April 28, 2014, the NinthCircuit construed Petitioner’s “motion for the Ninth

Circuit judges to take consideration about this case” as a motion for reconsideration. 

(Clark Decl. Ex. K.) The court denied the motion. (Id.) It also stated that “[n]o further

filings will be entertained in this closed case.” (Id.) As of June 27, 2014, the Ninth

Circuit had not yet issued the mandate.

II. ANALYSIS

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. “Without jurisdiction the court

cannot proceed at all in any cause.” Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S.

83, 94 (1998) (citation omitted). Accordingly, federal courts are under a continuing

duty to confirm their jurisdictional power and are even “obliged to inquire sua sponte

whenever a doubt arises as to the existence of [its] jurisdiction.” Mt. Healthy City Sch.

Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977).

This Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this motion. Title 8, section

1252, provides as follows:

[N]o court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim

by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or

action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings,

adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien

under this Act.

8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). This provision was created to “eliminate[] district court habeas

corpusjurisdiction over orders of removal and vest[] jurisdiction to review such orders

exclusively in the courts of appeals.” Puri v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir.

2006) (citing Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 928-29 (9th Cir. 2005)). “[A]

- 3 - 14cv829

Case 3:14-cv-00829-BAS-KSC Document 14 Filed 06/30/14 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

petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals . . . shall be the sole and

exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5); see

also Lin v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 979, 981 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2007); Azarte v. Ashcroft, 394

F.3d 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The denial of a motion to reopen falls within our

jurisdiction over final orders of removal (not issued in absentia) under 8 U.S.C. §

1252(a)(1), provided that the denial has been separately appealed.”). “[R]equesting a

stay of execution of the BIA’s removal order . . . falls within the ambit of section

1252(g).” Xiaoyuan Ma v. Holder, 860 F. Supp. 2d 1048, 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2012)

(citing Humphries v. Various Fed. USINS Emps., 164 F.3d 936, 945 (5th Cir. 1999)).

Consistent with Xiaoyuan Ma, this motion falls squarely under the scope of §

1252(g). See Xioayuan Ma, 860 F. Supp. 2d at 1059. Petitioner’s reply does not

provide any response to Respondent’s jurisdictional challenge, or any alternative

grounds on which this Court would have subject-matter jurisdiction over this motion. 

(See Pet’r’s Reply 8.) Because the only relief that Petitioner seeks is a stay of his

removal order pending his petition for review, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear his

request under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). See Xioayuan Ma, 860 F. Supp. 2d at 1059.

III. CONCLUSION & ORDER

In light of the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Petitioner’s motion for a stay of removal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The

Clerk of the Court shall close this case and enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 30, 2014

Hon. Cynthia Bashant

United States District Judge

- 4 - 14cv829

Case 3:14-cv-00829-BAS-KSC Document 14 Filed 06/30/14 Page 4 of 4