Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01272/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01272-0/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

---

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

Petitioner also requests his immediate release from ICE custody because “he has been in custody more the 1

[sic] Six (6) months.” (Doc. 1, p. 8). However, Petitioner provides no information at all in the instant petition

regarding the date of the final order of removal, the date his detention by ICE commenced, his citizenship, the

country to which he may be removed, or the likelihood that ICE will be able to effect his removal within a reasonable

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENIDITO LOTAWA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:06-cv-01272-AWI-TAG HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION

SHOULD NOT BE TRANSFERRED TO THE

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH

CIRCUIT PURSUANT TO THE REAL I.D.

ACT OF 2005

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

BACKGROUND

On September 15, 2006, petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus as

well as an “Emergency Motion For Stay Of Final Order Of Removal Or Deportation Pending

Judicial Review.” (Doc. 1). In the petition, petitioner indicates that he is presently in the custody

of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and being detained at Lerdo

Jail, Bakersfield, California. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Petitioner also alleges that he is subject to a final

order of removal, that during the removal proceedings, he was denied federal due process under

the Fifth Amendment as well as the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. 

(Doc. 1, pp. 3-4). Petitioner seeks legal review of the final order of removal. (Doc. 1, p. 5). 

Finally, Petitioner alleges that a stay of the removal proceedings is required in order to prevent

his removal and the subsequent prejudice that would result. (Doc. 1, p. 7).1

Case 1:06-cv-01272-AWI-TAG Document 4 Filed 10/10/06 Page 1 of 3
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

time. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). Accordingly, even were the Court to construe Petitioner’s

request for immediate release as an implicit due process claim based on the length of his detention and the likelihood

of his being removed, the allegations as presently framed in this petition would be insufficient to support such a

request. 

2

DISCUSSION

On May 11, 2005, Public Law 109-13 was enacted. Section 106 of that law (the Real ID

Act of 2005, hereinafter “RIDA”), is entitled “Judicial Review of Orders of Removal.” Section

106 amends 28 U.S.C. § 1252, providing in pertinent part as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section

2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision...a petition for

review filed in an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section shall be the

sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued

under any provision of this Act, except as provided in subsection (e)....”

(Emphasis supplied.)

The plain language of Section 106 thus divests the district court of jurisdiction in habeas

corpus cases involving challenges to a final order of removal, deportation, or exclusion, and

places exclusive jurisdiction for judicial review of such orders in the federal appeals court for the

district in which the removal order was issued. 

In this case, petitioner alleges generally violations of his constitutional rights during the

proceedings culminating in the final order of removal. Hence, it appears to the Court that the

petition challenges a “final order or removal, deportation, or exclusion,” which would, pursuant

to RIDA, deprive this Court of jurisdiction to proceed. Should that be the case, the Court would

recommend to the District Judge that the case be transferred to the venue specified in Section

106, i.e., the United States Court of Appeals for the area in which Petitioner’s final order of

removal was issued. Here, Petitioner does not specify where the removal proceedings occurred.

However, since Petitioner indicates that his wife and children live in the State of Washington and

he is being detained within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, the Court will presume, absent a

contrary indication by the parties, that the appropriate federal appeals court for the district in

which petitioner’s final order of removal was issued is the Ninth Circuit.

According to a Special Notice dated October 3, 2005, regarding the protocol for district

courts that are dealing with habeas corpus cases that may fall within the ambit of the RIDA, the

Case 1:06-cv-01272-AWI-TAG Document 4 Filed 10/10/06 Page 2 of 3
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

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit suggests that initially the district court “allow the

parties to stipulate to, or brief the propriety of, transfer.” Therefore, in accordance with the

Ninth Circuit’s directive, the Court will direct that, within ten (10) days of the date of service of

this order to show cause, the parties either: (1) stipulate to a transfer of jurisdiction to the Court

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or (2) in lieu of such a stipulation, that the parties submit briefs

regarding their respective legal positions as to such a transfer. 

If the parties do not stipulate to the transfer, and absent some strong showing that the

instant petition does not in fact seek to challenge a final order of removal issued with the

jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit, the Court will issue a Report and Recommendation to the

District Judge recommending that the matter be transferred to the Ninth Circuit for further

proceedings, including consideration of whether a stay is warranted.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the parties are GRANTED TEN (10)

days from the date of service of this Order, to SHOW CAUSE why the petition (Doc. 1) should

not be transferred to the United States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. The parties may

show cause either through the submission of a stipulation for transfer to the appropriate federal

circuit court of appeals, or by submission of a document detailing that party’s legal position visa-vis such a proposed transfer. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that the petition (Doc. 1) be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 6, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01272-AWI-TAG Document 4 Filed 10/10/06 Page 3 of 3