Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04308/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04308-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 8:1105(a) Aliens: Habeas Corpus to Release INS Detainee

---

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

1

The Petition states “April 20, 2006,” but this appears to be a typographical error, as petitioner

was not detained and ordered removed until October 2006.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MOHAMMED SHAMIM,

Petitioner,

 v.

U.S. DEPT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.,

Respondents. /

No. C 07-04308 SI

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner Mohammed Shamim, who has been ordered removed from this country under its

immigration laws, filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 claiming that his detention pending removal

is unlawful. His petition is now before the Court for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 

BACKGROUND

Petitioner alleges in his petition that he is being subjected to an improper indefinite detention

by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). He is in custody at the Lerdo Pre-Trial Detention

Facility in Bakersfield, California. He allegedly was taken into custody on October 17, 2006, and was

ordered removed on October 19, 2006. Petitioner subsequently filed two motions to reopen the case;

both were denied and are currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. On April 20, 2007,1

 the DHS

denied his application for release, on the ground that his petition for review was pending before the

Ninth Circuit. See Nightingale Decl., Ex. C. The DHS also stated that his detention would be further

reviewed “in one year.” Id. 

Case 3:07-cv-04308-SI Document 6 Filed 09/11/07 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

2

DISCUSSION

The Court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person “in custody

in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It

shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not

be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled

thereto.” Id. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are

vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908

F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). 

Petitioner claims in his habeas petition that his indefinite detention exceeds respondents’

statutory authority to detain, violates petitioner’s due process rights, and amounts to punishment without

due process. Liberally construed, petitioner’s claims are cognizable. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 121 S. Ct.

2497-98, 2503-04 (2001) (finding jurisdiction in the district court to hear a § 2241 habeas petition

brought by an alien found removable and who is being detained instead of deported because no country

will accept him); see also Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 378 (2005) (extending Zadvydas to all those

detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6)). 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court finds that the petition states a

cognizable habeas claim. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order and the petition,

and all attachments thereto on respondents and their attorneys. The clerk also shall serve a copy of this

order upon petitioner. Respondents must file and serve on petitioner, on or before November 16, 2007,

an answer showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. If petitioner wishes to

respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse with the Court and serving it on respondents

on or before December 14, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-04308-SI Document 6 Filed 09/11/07 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

3

Case 3:07-cv-04308-SI Document 6 Filed 09/11/07 Page 3 of 3