Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05527/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-05527-1/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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VAN HUNG VI,

Petitioner,

 v.

NANCY ALCANTAR, Field Office

Director, United States Immigration

and Customs Services (USICE); JANET

L. MYERS, Assistant Secretary;

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, Secretary,

Department of Homeland Security,

Respondents. /

No. C 07-5527 CW

ORDER DENYING

RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS AND DIRECTING

RESPONDENTS TO ANSWER

THE PETITION

Petitioner Van Hung Vi is currently detained in the Sacramento

County Jail, where he awaits trial on pending federal criminal

charges. After he was arrested on the current charges, United

States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) allegedly lodged a

detainer with the county jail. Pursuant to this detainer, if

Petitioner is released from county custody, he allegedly will be

remanded to the custody of ICE. This detainer is apparently based

on a final order of deportation that was issued against Petitioner

Case 4:07-cv-05527-CW Document 9 Filed 04/04/08 Page 1 of 6
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

1Because Respondents have not addressed the substance of the

petition and no party has submitted relevant documents, the Court

cannot determine with certainty the nature of or the basis for the

detainer.

2

“sometime after 1987 because of a Canadian drug conviction.”1

However, Petitioner allegedly cannot be deported because his

country of origin, Vietnam, will not accept him. For this reason,

Petitioner now seeks a writ of habeas corpus compelling Respondents

to withdraw the detainer. He argues that, because his removal is

not reasonably foreseeable, his future detention will be indefinite

and thus is not authorized by statute. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533

U.S. 678 (2001).

On December 18, 2007, the Court ordered Respondents to file an

answer to the allegations in the petition and showing cause why a

writ should not issue. Respondents filed a “Response” to this

order that the Court will construe as a motion to dismiss. The

Response does not address the substantive allegations in the

petition. Instead, it argues that the Court does not have

jurisdiction to issue a writ because ICE’s lodging the detainer

with the county jail does not render Petitioner “in custody” for

the purposes of the habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner

counters that the detainer, combined with the existing final order

of removal against him, satisfies the custody requirement.

The Ninth Circuit has held that a “bare detainer letter alone

does not sufficiently place an alien in INS custody to make habeas

corpus available.” Garcia v. Taylor, 40 F.3d 299, 303 (1994). 

However, in so holding, the court relied upon the fact that a

detainer letter is “issued before there is a warrant or an order to

Case 4:07-cv-05527-CW Document 9 Filed 04/04/08 Page 2 of 6
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 3

show cause directed to the alien,” and “merely advises that an

investigation has been commenced and that an order to show cause

and warrant will be issued when available.” Id. The court also

stated that “detainer plus a warrant does constitute a form of

custody.” Id.; see also Chew v. Boyd, 309 F.2d 857, 865 (9th Cir.

1962) (where “a warrant is obtained by the Service while the person

named is in a penal institution, and on the basis thereof a

detainer is lodged with that institution, the [INS] gains immediate

technical custody”).

Notably, in Garcia, the petitioner did not have a final order

of removal against him, and thus the detainer letter “merely

notifie[d] prison officials that a decision regarding his

deportation [would] be made by the INS at some future date.” 40

F.3d at 304 (quoting Campillo v. Sullivan, 853 F.2d 593, 595 (8th

Cir. 1988)). The court noted that, if the INS were to initiate

removal proceedings while the petitioner was still in custody on

the criminal charge, “habeas corpus may well then be available.” 

Id. Thus, Ninth Circuit precedent, while not conclusive, supports

Petitioner’s argument that the detainer filed with the county jail,

taken together with the final order of removal against him, renders

him in the custody of ICE for purposes of the habeas statute.

Case law from other circuits also supports Petitioner’s

position. In Galaviz-Medina v. Wooten, 27 F.3d 487, 493 (10th Cir.

1994), the Tenth Circuit noted that, because a final deportation

order was in place in addition to a detainer, the INS’s right to

custody of the petitioner following the expiration of his prison

term had been established conclusively. “Consequently, the INS

Case 4:07-cv-05527-CW Document 9 Filed 04/04/08 Page 3 of 6
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 4

[had] a more concrete interest in this alien than those cases which

have concluded the detainer is insufficient to satisfy the custody

requirement.” The court concluded, “Since Appellant has a detainer

plus a final order of deportation against him, . . . he is ‘in

custody’ of the INS for purposes of habeas review.” Id.

Similarly, in Simmonds v. INS, 326 F.3d 351, 354-56 (2d Cir. 2003),

the Second Circuit held that any petitioner who is subject to a

final order of removal is “in custody” for purposes of § 2241, even

if that order cannot be executed because the petitioner is in state

custody at the time. 

Even the cases cited by Respondents support Petitioner’s

argument. In Garcia-Echaverria v. United States, 376 F.3d 507 (6th

Cir. 2004), the Sixth Circuit stated:

[A]t the time Garcia-Echaverria filed his § 2241

petition, the INS had already reinstated

Garcia-Echaverria’s prior Final Order of Removal. The

IIRIRA requires the INS to take custody of and commence

procedures to execute the removal of an alien who is

subject to a final order of removal based upon a

conviction for an “aggravated felony.” This requirement

was strong evidence of the DHS’s intention to take

custody of Garcia-Echaverria immediately following the

conclusion of his sentence, and thus satisfies the

custody requirement for a § 2241 petition. Because

Garcia-Echaverria was in INS custody at the time he filed

his habeas petition challenging the constitutionality of

his confinement, the district court had jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

Id. at 511 (citations omitted). In Zolicoffer v. U.S. Dep’t of

Justice, 315 F.3d 538, 541 (5th Cir. 2003), the Fifth Circuit held

that the petitioner could not satisfy the custody requirement

simply by showing that the INS had lodged a detainer against him. 

However, the court’s decision depended on the fact that the

petitioner did “not contend that the INS actually [had] ordered his

Case 4:07-cv-05527-CW Document 9 Filed 04/04/08 Page 4 of 6
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

2Respondents also argue that, “to the extent Petitioner is

challenging his custody in the Sacramento Jail pursuant to a

criminal indictment issued by the Eastern District of California,

the petition must be in the district in which a prisoner is

incarcerated.” Petitioner, however, is not challenging his present

custody in the county jail -- he is challenging the ICE detainer. 

Thus, the Court does not construe Respondents’ motion as arguing

that venue is improper.

5

deportation.” Id. Likewise, in Orozco v. INS, 911 F.2d 539, 541

(11th Cir. 1990), the Eleventh Circuit based its finding that the

petitioner was not “in custody” on the fact that the INS had “not

yet commenced proceedings to determine deportability but [had]

merely lodged a detainer. The filing of the detainer, standing

alone, did not cause Orozco to come within the custody of the INS.”

Unlike in Garcia, ICE has not simply signaled a future intent

to determine whether Petitioner is removable; it apparently intends

to take Petitioner into custody in order to execute the final order

of removal already issued against him. His case is thus more

similar to Galaviz-Medina, Simmonds and Garcia-Echaverria. The

Court follows those cases in concluding that it has jurisdiction

over this petition.2

For the foregoing reasons, Respondents’ motion to dismiss is

DENIED. Respondents are ordered to file with the Court and serve

on Petitioner and his counsel, within fourteen days of this order,

an answer responding on the merits to the allegations in the

petition and showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not

be issued. Respondents must file and serve with the answer a copy

of all documents that are relevant to a determination of the issues

presented by the petition. If Petitioner wishes to respond to the

answer, he must do so by filing a traverse within seven days of

Case 4:07-cv-05527-CW Document 9 Filed 04/04/08 Page 5 of 6
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 6

receipt of the answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/4/08 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-05527-CW Document 9 Filed 04/04/08 Page 6 of 6