Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03649/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-03649-0/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

JKM

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Martiniano Pacheco-Tellez, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Alberto R. Gonzales, et al., 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-3649-PHX-DGC (VAM)

ORDER

Petitioner Martiniano Pacheco-Tellez (A92-561-114), who is confined in the Eloy

Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

p ursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner also has filed a Motion for Emergency St ay of

Deportation (Doc. # 3) and a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. #4). The action will

be dismissed and Petitioner’s motions will be denied.

PETITION

Petitioner is a native and cit izen of Mexico. In 1998, he was convicted of Open or

Gross Lewdness in violation of Nevada law. On February 18, 2004, an immigration judge

found Petitioner removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an alien convicted of an

aggravated felony, and under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) as an alien convicted of a child

abuse offense. On March 18, 2005, the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) dismissed

Petitioner’s appeal. On July 21, 2005, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth

Circuit denied Petitioner’s petition for review for lack of jurisdiction. Pacheco-Tellez v.

Case 2:05-cv-03649-DGC--VAM Document 5 Filed 11/21/05 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

- 2 -

Gonzales, No. 05-71741 (9th Cir. Jul. 21, 2005) (unpublished order). On October 6, 2005, the

Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s mot ion for reconsideration. Pacheco-Tellez v. Gonzales,

No. 05-71741 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2005) (unpublished order).

Petitioner assert s four grounds in support of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus:

(1) the immigration judge erred in his finding that Petitioner’s Nevada conviction qualifies

as an aggravated felony; (2) the immigration judge’s factual and legal errors caused the

BIA to reach the wrong decision; (3) Ninth Circuit erred in dismissing his Petition for

review for lack of jurisdiction; and (4) Petitioner’s removal from the United States should

be stayed pending resolution of this action. 

DISCUSSION

On May 11, 2005, the President signed into law the REAL ID Act of 2005. Pub. L.

No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005). As amended by t he REAL ID Act, 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(5) now provides in relevant part:

(5) EXCLUSIVE MEANS OF REVIEW. – Notwithstanding any other

provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of title

28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections

1361 and 1651 of such title, a petition for review filed with 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).

REAL ID Act §106(a)(1)(B). By this amendment, Congress has deprived the district courts

of habeas corpus jurisdiction to review orders of removal entered under the Immigration

and Nationalit y Act . This jurisdiction stripping provision is retroactive. REAL ID Act §

106(b) (“subsection (a) shall take effect up on t he date of enactment of this division and

shall apply to cases in which the final administrative order of removal, dep ortation, or

exclusion was issued before, on, or after the date of enactment”). The REAL ID Act also

provides that if any § 2241 habeas corpus case “challenging a final administrative order of

removal . . . is p ending in a district court on the date of enactment, then the district court

shall transfer the case . . . to the [appropriate] court of ap p eals.” REAL ID Act §106(c).

This action, however, cannot be transferred under § 106(c) because it was not pending on

Case 2:05-cv-03649-DGC--VAM Document 5 Filed 11/21/05 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 -

the date of enactment . Moreover, the Ninth Circuit has already rejected Petitioner’s

petition for review. 

Petitioner asks this Court to hold that the Ninth Circuit erred in dismissing his

p etition for review, but a district court cannot reconsider a decision made by a court of

appeals. See Nunes v. Ashcroft, 375 F.3d 805, 809-10 (9th Cir. 2004) (an alien may not

relitigate in district court a p rior determination made by the court of appeals). This action

will therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

REQUEST FOR STAY OF REMOVAL

Because the underlying Petition is not cogniz able, Petitioner’s request for a stay of

removal must also be denied. See Arcamuzi v. Continental Air Lines, Inc., 819 F.2d 935, 937

(9th Cir. 1987) (if the applicant shows no chance of success on the merit s, a p reliminary

injunction should not issue).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Petition is denied and t his action is

dismissed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Emergency Stay of

Deportation Pending (Doc. #3) is denied and Petitioner’s M ot ion for Appointment of

Counsel (Doc. #4) is denied as moot.

DATED this 21st day of November, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-03649-DGC--VAM Document 5 Filed 11/21/05 Page 3 of 3