Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00857/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00857-0/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 07cv0857 BTM(AJB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GIRLIE LINGAD,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07cv0857 BTM(AJB)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR

v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, SECRETARY

OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

HOMELAND SECURITY, and ALBERTO

GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondents.

Petitioner has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241. In her Petition, Petitioner contends that Magistrate Judge Porter’s order

certifying her extradition violated her due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. For the

reasons discussed below, Petitioner’s Petition is DENIED. 

DISCUSSION

The parties are familiar with the factual and procedural background of this case, which

need not be repeated here.

Petitioner’s sole basis for relief is her contention that her due process rights were

violated when Magistrate Judge Porter granted the Government’s motion to reopen the case

based on additional evidence on identity that was available previously. Analogizing to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b), Petitioner argues that because the evidence of identity

Case 3:07-cv-00857-BTM-AJB Document 8 Filed 10/18/07 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 07cv0857 BTM(AJB)

was not newly discovered, it was unfair for Magistrate Judge Porter to reconsider her denial

of the request for extradition.

The Court first notes that while both the Government’s motion to reopen [Docket # 22]

and Judge Porter’s initial decision denying extradition [Docket # 23] were filed on the same

day (February 16, 2007), the Government’s papers were filed first. Thus, on its face, Rule

60 is inapplicable. Furthermore, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure simply do not apply

to extradition hearings. Matter of Requested Extradition of Smyth, 61 F.3d 711, 720-21 (9th

Cir. 1995). 

Nothing prevents the government from reinstituting extradition proceedings after initial

unsuccessful attempts. Hooker v. Klein, 573 F.2d 1360, 1365 (9th Cir. 1978); Collins v. Lisel,

262 U.S. 426 (1923). A denial of a request for extradition is not a final judgment and does

not have res judicata effect. Hooker, 573 F.2d at 1367-68. Thus, Petitioner’s argument that

she “should have some expectation of finality of a court’s dispositive order” lacks merit in the

context of extradition proceedings. 

 In Bovio v. United States, 989 F.2d 255 (7th Cir. 1993), the petitioner argued that it

was a violation of due process for the magistrate judge to have allowed the government to

reopen the proceedings after the judge denied extradition. The petitioner objected that “the

government’s subsequent effort at extradition was not pursuant to any new evidence but was

a blatant attempt to correct the deficiencies in an investigation which had been completed

five years previously.” Id. at 260. In rejecting petitioner’s claim, the Seventh Circuit

explained, “The government, as any other party, has the right to move for reconsideration

of a court’s decision.” Id. at 261. The court also noted that the government is permitted “to

file multiple extraditions requests against the same person.” Id. at 261 n. 5.

There is no due process right to the finality of a denial of extradition. The Magistrate

Judge properly exercised her discretion to allow reopening by the Government to establish

identity. Petitioner does not contend that the present record does not support the Magistrate

Judge’s finding of extradictability. Therefore, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

denied.

Case 3:07-cv-00857-BTM-AJB Document 8 Filed 10/18/07 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 07cv0857 BTM(AJB)

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is

DENIED. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 18, 2007

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00857-BTM-AJB Document 8 Filed 10/18/07 Page 3 of 3