Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00816/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-00816-0/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 (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

*

Pursuant to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Eric J. Holder, Jr.

is substituted as Attorney General for Michael B. Mukasey.

1

His original petition was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern

District of California. Upon his transfer from state custody to the Eloy Detention Center, the

Court dismissed the action for lack of jurisdiction (Doc. #16). The Ninth Circuit remanded

and the District Court vacated the dismissal (Doc. #25). His amended petition again

challenges his continued detention (Doc. #32).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Julian Gago de Medeiros, )

) No. CIV 06-0816-PHX-JAT (DKD)

Petitioner, )

) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

v. )

)

Eric J. Holder, Jr.,*

 et al., )

)

Respondents. )

____________________________)

TO THE HONORABLE JAMES A. TEILBORG, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Petitioner Julian Gago de Medeiros has filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his continued detention by immigration

authorities pending the conclusion of his appeal of the government’s decision to order him

removed to Portugal.1

 Because de Medeiros seeks relief to which he is not entitled and on

several occasions has refused to participate in the only relief to which he is entitled, the Court

recommends that his petition be denied as moot. The Court will also deny all pending

motions as moot, or with a recommendation for denial by the District Court.

Case 2:06-cv-00816-JAT Document 93 Filed 08/19/09 Page 1 of 6
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 -

UNDERLYING REMOVAL PROCEEDINGS

On or about September 5, 1965, de Mederios, a 59 year-old native and citizen of

Portugal, was admitted to the United States. On September 8, 1978, his status was adjusted

to that of lawful permanent resident (Doc. #42, Exh 1, 2). On June 8, 1995, he was convicted

of 72 felony counts of making a false statement to obtain disability insurance and supplying

a false medical certificate to obtain disability insurance in violation of sections 2101 and

2116 of the California Unemployment Insurance Code. He was sentenced to an enhanced

ten-year prison term and required to pay restitution in the amount of $280,490.80 (Id., Exh

22, R.T. 2/10/2006 at 4, 7).

On December 14, 2005, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to

Appear, charging de Medeiros with removal pursuant to § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act, for having been convicted of an aggravated felony as

defined in section 101(a)(43)(M) of the Act relating to an offense involving fraud or deceit

in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000 (Id., Exh 3). On December 20,

2005, after de Medeiros was released from state custody, the government took him into

custody (Id., Exh 21). On February 1, 2006, the government filed an additional charge of

removability under section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the Act for having been convicted of two

crimes involving moral turpitude not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct

(Id., Exh 4). On February 10, 2006, de Medeiros admitted the allegations of alienage, and

denied the charges of removability (Id., Exh 19, R.T. 2/10/06 at 24-27). Following the

government’s submission of conviction documents and additional documents into evidence,

the immigration judge sustained all of the allegations and the aggravated felony charge of

removability (Id., Tr 27-28, 44-47, Exh 5). The immigration judge ordered de Medeiros

removed to Portugal; de Medeiros reserved appeal (Id., Exh 6).

On March 1, 2006, de Medeiros filed a Motion to Reconsider, requesting a correction

of an alleged error of material fact in the removal order (Id., Exh 7). On March 7, 2006, the

immigration judge denied the motion (Id., Exh 8, 22). On March 8, 2006, de Medeiros filed

Case 2:06-cv-00816-JAT Document 93 Filed 08/19/09 Page 2 of 6
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 -

a Notice of Appeal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) (Id., Exh 9). On April 24,

2006, de Medeiros sought an extension of time from the BIA for filing his appeal brief (Id.,

Exh 10). On April 27, 2006, the government requested from the BIA a summary affirmance

of the immigration judges’ removal order (Id., Exh 11). On May 7, 2006, de Medeiros again

requested an extension (Id., Exh 12). On May 31, 2006, de Medeiros filed his appeal brief

(Id., Exh 13). On June 21, 2006, the BIA dismissed the appeals of both his motion to

reconsider and the decision ordering him removed (Id., Exh 14). On June 30, 2006, de

Medeiros filed a Petition for Review with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals; the Court

issued a stay of removal (Id., Exh 20). That stay of removal will remain in effect until the

issuance of the mandate. See de Medeiros v. Mukasey, C.A. No. 06-73321.

CUSTODY DETERMINATIONS

On August 11, 2006, the government served de Medeiros with a Notice to Alien of

File Custody Review which de Medeiros refused to sign in acknowledgment of having

received it (Doc. #42, Exh 15). On September 22, 2006, the government issued a decision

to continue detention (Id., Exh 16). Following a similar notice issued on September 10,

2007, the government again decided to continue detention on October 23, 2007 (Id., Exh 17,

18).

On August 25, 2008, the government notified de Medeiros of his entitlement to a bond

hearing as a result of the recent Ninth Circuit decisions issued in Casas-Castrillon v.

Department of Homeland Security, 535 F.3d 942 (9th Cir. 2008) and Prieto-Romero v. Clark,

534 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2008). The government informed this Court that as of October 2,

2008, de Medeiros had not requested such a hearing (Doc. #54, Exh 26). On December 2,

2008, the government filed a motion to set a Casas bond hearing. The Immigration Court

scheduled the bond hearing for December 12, 2008; de Medeiros requested a continuance

because he was not prepared (Doc. #85, Exh 1, Informal Transcript - 12/12/08 Hearing). The

hearing was continued to February 27, 2009. On February 27, 2009, de Medeiros objected

to the hearing because he had not requested it. The government reurged its motion to set the

Case 2:06-cv-00816-JAT Document 93 Filed 08/19/09 Page 3 of 6
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

The government also filed with the Court a certified copy of the audio tape recordings

of those hearings and CD rom disks made from those audio recordings. In addition, multiple

CD rom recordings of the certified tapes have been produced and provided to de Medeiros

along with the informal transcripts.

3

In March, the Ninth Circuit granted de Medeiros’s motion to hold the appeal in

abeyance pending their en banc reconsideration of Kawashima, and briefing has been

suspended pending further order of the Circuit Court.

- 4 -

Casas hearing and the immigration judge again continued the proceedings to April 24, 2009

(Id., Exh 2, Informal Transcript - 2/27/09 Hearing). At the April 24 proceeding, de Medeiros

again objected to the hearing, contending that the court did not have jurisdiction because he

had not requested the hearing and he could not be forced to participate in the hearing. The

immigration judge reminded de Medeiros that the hearing had been twice postponed to allow

him to decide whether he wanted such a hearing and to allow him to prepare for the hearing.

The immigration judge issued an order taking no action on the bond. This Order was based

upon de Medeiros’s insistence that (1) the case had been continued for him to research the

jurisdictional issue; (2) it would violate his due process rights to force him to have a Casas

bond hearing if he did not want one; (3) participating in a Casas bond hearing would deprive

him of the opportunity to request a Casas hearing later at a time of his choosing; and (4) the

immigration judge did not have jurisdiction and de Medeiros did not want a bond hearing on

that date (Id., Exh 3, Informal Transcript - 4/24/09 Hearing).2

LEGAL DISCUSSION

In his supplemental pleadings, de Medeiros has argued for his immediate release

based upon the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Kawashima v. Mukasey, 530 F.3d 1111 (9th Cir.

2008). He contends that Kawashima renders his removal order invalid. However, as the

government points out, the READ ID Act of 2005 deprives this Court of jurisdiction to

review any claims regarding de Medeiros’s final Order of Removal. Martinez-Rosas v.

Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 929 (9th Cir. 2005). Because de Medeiros’s appeal of his final order

of removal is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit,3

 and the Court of Appeals has

Case 2:06-cv-00816-JAT Document 93 Filed 08/19/09 Page 4 of 6
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

Because the Court finds the petition is moot, it need not discuss de Medeiros’s

combined Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction/Summary

Judgment, other than to recommend denial of the motion.

- 5 -

issued a stay of removal, his detention is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Casas-Castrillon,

535 F.3d at 947. In addition, the Court has determined that de Medeiros’s detention under

8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) is lawful. The only relief to which de Medeiros is entitled under statute

or case law is a bond hearing in which the government bears the burden of establishing his

risk to the community or flight risk. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); Casas-Castrillon. As evidenced

from the transcripts of both proceedings, when the government attempted to provide de

Medeiros with the only relief to which he is entitled under Casas - a bond hearing, he has

repeatedly and fervently declined to participate. His petition is therefore moot as the

government has offered the relief to which he is entitled.4

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Julian Gago de Medeiros’ Amended

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be dismissed as moot (Doc. #32).

IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that de Medeiros’ Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction/Summary Judgment be denied (Doc. #56).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Julian Gago de Medeiros’ Motions to Compel,

Produce and/or Supplement, and for E tensions are denied as moot (Doc. ##55, 61, 64, 65,

67, 70, 75, 82, 83, 89, 90).

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules

72, 6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and

Case 2:06-cv-00816-JAT Document 93 Filed 08/19/09 Page 5 of 6
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 -

Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 18th day of August, 2009.

Case 2:06-cv-00816-JAT Document 93 Filed 08/19/09 Page 6 of 6