Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02257/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-02257-0/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

1

 The INS ceased to exist as an independent agency within the Department of Justice

and its functions were transferred to the newly formed Department of Homeland Security on

March 1, 2003. See Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135

(Nov. 25, 2002). 

WO JKM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Linden Winston Graham, Jr., 

Petitioner,

vs.

Shabak Sunyani, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 04-2257-PHX-EHC (MS)

ORDER

On September 28, 2004, Petitioner Linden Winston Graham, Jr., (A24-594-709) filed

a pro se a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of California. The Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill found that venue was

improper because Petitioner was confined in the Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona.

The action was therefore transferred to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1406. 

PETITION

Petitioner alleges that in 2003, when he was confined by the California Department

of Corrections in the Tehachapi State Prison, he learned that the Immigration and

Naturalization Service (“INS”)1

 had issued a detainer letter which prevented him from being

Case 2:04-cv-02257-EHC--MS Document 7 Filed 09/29/05 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

 The caption of the Petition lists Respondent’s name as “Shabak Sunyani,” but

Exhibit F of the Petition, which includes Respondent’s name and signature, lists his name as

“Sunyani Shabaka.”

- 2 -

released on parole. Petitioner alleges that on October 3, 2003, he was scheduled to be

interviewed by an immigration agent, but that the agent failed to appear for the interview.

On October 6, 2003, Petitioner was released by the California Department of Corrections into

the custody of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”). Petitioner was taken to the

Eloy Detention Center where he is currently confined. 

In proceedings before an immigration judge, Petitioner claimed that because he was

born in the U.S. Virgin Islands, he is a citizen of the United States. Petitioner argued that the

immigration proceedings against him were the result of a misidentification. Petitioner argued

that the immigration records that purported to show that he was born in Jamaica related to

another person, Winston George Graham. On March 22, 2004, Respondent Sunyani

Shabaka,2

 who is a DHS criminal investigator in California, testified telephonically at

Petitioner’s removal hearing in Eloy. Petitioner claims that Respondent Shabaka falsely

testified that he personally interviewed Petitioner in the Tehachapi State Prison and that

during the interview Petitioner admitted that he was born in Kingston, Jamaica. Petitioner

also claims that the other named Respondents, Rosler, Mitchel and “Unknown

Administrators,” who are all officials at the Tehachapi State Prison, conspired with

Respondent Shabaka to falsify records regarding Petitioner’s identity and citizenship.

IMPROPER RESPONDENTS

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, a writ of habeas corpus must be “directed to the person

having custody of the person detained.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243; see also, 28 U.S.C. § 2242 (a

petition for writ of habeas corpus must “name the person who has custody over” the

petitioner). If the petition fails to name the petitioner’s custodian as the respondent, the

Court lacks in personam jurisdiction over the custodian and cannot grant relief. See Braden

v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 494-95 (1973) (“The writ of habeas corpus does

Case 2:04-cv-02257-EHC--MS Document 7 Filed 09/29/05 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 -

not act upon the prisoner who seeks relief, but upon the person who holds him in what is

alleged to be unlawful custody.”). 

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has held that the “proper

respondent in a federal habeas corpus petition is the petitioner’s ‘immediate custodian.’”

Brittingham v. United States Bd. of Parole, 982 F.2d 378, 379 (9th Cir.1992) (per curiam)

(quoting Demjanjuk v. Meese, 784 F.2d 1114, 115 (D.C. Cir. 1986). “A custodian ‘is the

person having a day-to-day control over the prisoner. That person is the only one who can

produce ‘the body’ of the petitioner.’” Id. (quoting Guerra v. Meese, 786 F.2d 414, 416

(D.C. Cir. 1986). Petitioner’s custodian is the warden of the detention center where he is

being held. Id. Here, Petitioner is in federal custody on immigration charges, but he has

named a DHS criminal investigator and California Department of Corrections officials as

respondents. 

[W]hen a habeas petitioner has failed to name the proper respondent pursuant

to § 2242, [the court] must ask sua sponte whether the respondent who is

named has the power to order the petitioner’s release. If not, the court may not

grant effective relief, and thus should not hear the case unless the petition is

amended to name a respondent who can grant the desired relief. 

Smith v. Idaho, 392 F.3d 350, 355 n.3 (9th Cir. 2004). Because none of the named

Respondents are Petitioner’s custodians, they do not have the power to order Petitioner’s

release. 

Ordinarily, the Court would grant Petitioner leave to file an amended petition naming

proper respondents. Here, however, Petitioner has another pending habeas corpus action

challenging his removal order on the grounds that false evidence was used to support the

Government’s assertion that he is not a citizen of the United States. See Graham v.

Gonzalez, CV 04-2796-PHX-EHC (MS). By separate order, that action will be transferred

to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to § 106(c) of the REAL

ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005). An amended petition in

this action would be redundant. Accordingly, this action will be dismissed without prejudice

to permit Petitioner to pursue his claim that he is a citizen of the United States in the Ninth

Circuit. See Taniguchi v. Schultz, 303 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2002) (the courts of appeals

Case 2:04-cv-02257-EHC--MS Document 7 Filed 09/29/05 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 -

retain exclusive jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(5) to review a claim by a criminal

alien in removal proceedings that he is a citizen of the United States); Baeta v. Sonchik, 273

F.3d 1261, 1264-5 (9th Cir. 2001) (same). 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition and this action are dismissed

without prejudice and the Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion Requesting Subpoena (Doc.

#6) is denied as moot.

DATED this 23rd day of September, 2005.

Case 2:04-cv-02257-EHC--MS Document 7 Filed 09/29/05 Page 4 of 4