Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00555/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00555-1/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

- 1 - 07cv555

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS ARMAS-RAMIREZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07cv555 WQH (JMA)

ORDER DISMISSING

PETITION WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

vs.

ANTHONY CERONE, Field Office

Director Enforcement, et.al.,

Respondents.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Carlos Armas-Ramirez (“Petitioner”). (Doc. # 1.)

I. Background

On March 23, 2007, Petitioner filed the Petition, asserting that he has been illegally held

in detention without bond by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) since May 4,

2004. (Doc. # 1.)

On May 16, 2007, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause, which states, in part:

Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE no later than June 18, 2007

why the petition should not be granted by: filing a written return; filing copies

of all documents, orders and transcripts relevant to the petition; and filing a

memorandum of law and fact fully stating Respondents’ position and making a

recommendation regarding the need for an evidentiary hearing on the petition.

Case 3:07-cv-00555-WQH-JMA Document 12 Filed 08/30/07 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

- 2 - 07cv555

(May 16, 2007 Order to Show Cause, Doc. # 4, at 2.)

On June 15, 2007, Respondents filed “Government’s Return to Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus” (“Return”) which states, in full:

Petitioner Armas complains that he is being detained without bond pending his

removal proceedings, which were recently reopened and remanded to the

Immigration Judge. On June 14, 2007, the Department of Homeland Security

set bond in the amount of $5000. [See attached exhibit.] Therefore, this case

should be dismissed as moot.

(Doc. # 5.) The exhibit attached to the Return is a document signed by Respondent Anthony

Cerone, Assistant Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement setting

Petitioner’s bond at $5,000.

On June 25, 2007, Petitioner filed a “Return in Answer to Government to Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus” (“Traverse”), which states, in part: “Petitioner ask[s] this Court to

have an individualized bond hearing before a neutral judge, to have a bond reduction or to be

release[d] on its own recognizance; due to the fact that Petitioner is indigent and he has been

in custody of DHS for over three years.” (Doc. # 7.)

On July 13, 2007, this Court issued an Order stating in part:

No later than twenty days from the date this Order is filed, Respondents shall

file an amended Return which complies with the Court’s May 16, 2007 Order

to Show Cause requiring Respondents to show cause ‘why the petition should

not be granted by: filing a written return; filing copies of all documents, orders

and transcripts relevant to the petition; and filing a memorandum of law and fact

fully stating Respondents’ position and making a recommendation regarding the

need for an evidentiary hearing on the petition.’ (May 16, 2007 Order to Show

Cause, Doc. # 4, at 2.) If Petitioner wishes to reply to the amended Return, he

may do so by way of a traverse filed no later than twenty days after the date

Respondents file the amended Return.

Additionally, Respondents shall allow Petitioner review of his bond

determination pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19.

(Doc. # 8, at 3.)

On July 26, 2007, Respondents filed “Government’s Supplemental Return to Petition

for Writ of Habeas Corpus,” which presented evidence that on June 22, 2007, Petitioner posted

the $5,000 bond and was released from DHS custody. (Doc. # 9, Ex. 11.) Respondents also

presented evidence indicating that on April 25, 2007, the Board of Immigration Appeals

remanded Petitioner’s removal proceedings to the Immigration Judge for decision. (Id., Ex.

2.) Respondents argued that the Petition should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and that

Case 3:07-cv-00555-WQH-JMA Document 12 Filed 08/30/07 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

- 3 - 07cv555

Petitioner has failed to pursue his administrative remedies which remain available to him to

challenge the amount of the bond.

On July 31, 2007, the Court’s July 13, 2007 Order was returned by the Post Office as

undeliverable because Petitioner had not left a forwarding address with the DHS detention

facility. (Doc. # 11.) Petitioner has not provided the Court with his current address as required

by Local Civil Rule 83.11 and has not filed a response to Respondents’ Supplemental Return.

II. Discussion

The record establishes that Petitioner has received a bond hearing, that bond was set,

and that Petitioner posted bond and was released. Under these facts, the sole remaining issue

in this case could only be the propriety of the determination by the DHS to set a $5,000 bond.

According to the applicable regulations, Petitioner has administrative remedies he may

pursue if he is dissatisfied with the “custody determination [by the DHS] . . . including the

setting of a bond” and/or the “the terms of his release.” 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(1) (stating that

the appeal must be filed within seven days of his release); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1236.1(d)(2)

(“After expiration of the 7-day period in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, the respondent may

request review by the district director of the conditions of his or her release.”); 8 C.F.R. §

1236.1(d)(3) (“An appeal relating to bond and custody determinations may be filed to the

Board of Immigration Appeals in the following circumstances: . . . (ii) The alien, within 10

days, may appeal from the district director’s decision under paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this

section.”).

The Ninth Circuit “require[s], as a prudential matter, that habeas petitioners exhaust

available . . . administrative remedies before seeking relief under § 2241.” Castro-Cortez v.

I.N.S., 239 F.3d 1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001) (citing U.S. v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir.

1997); Brown v. Rison, 895 F.2d 533, 535 (9th Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by

Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, --- U.S. ----, 126 S. Ct. 2422 (2006). 

The record before the Court shows that Petitioner did not pursue his available

administrative remedies to contest the bond determination by the DHS and has been released.

(Doc. # 9 at 3.) Petitioner would be required to exhaust his available administrative remedies

Case 3:07-cv-00555-WQH-JMA Document 12 Filed 08/30/07 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 - 07cv555

prior to continuing an action pursuant to § 2241 to challenge his bond determination. See

Castro-Cortez, 239 F.3d at 1047. Accordingly, based upon the record before the Court, this

action is dismissed without prejudice.

III. Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the Petition is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT

PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

DATED: August 30, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00555-WQH-JMA Document 12 Filed 08/30/07 Page 4 of 4