Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05390/USCOURTS-cand-3_03-cv-05390-2/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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

In that case, as in this one, Alberto R. Gonzales was substituted for his predecessor,

John Ashcroft, as Attorney General of the United States. Fed. R. App. P. 43(c)(2); Fed. R. Civ.

P. 25(d)(1) (providing for substitution of parties when a public officer is a party to an action in

his or her official capacity and, during the pendency of that action, ceases to hold office).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR VALENCIA,

Petitioner,

v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALES, et al.,

Respondents.

NO. C03-5390 TEH 

ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE

In this case, Petitioner Victor Valencia seeks a writ of habeas corpus, under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241, based on his deportation to Peru. Valencia never sought a stay of removal in this

Court, but the parties did stipulate to stay proceedings in this case until after the Ninth Circuit

decided a related appeal, Valencia v. Ashcroft, Case No. 03-72028. The Ninth Circuit issued

an opinion in that related case on May 12, 2005. Valencia v. Gonzales, 406 F.3d 1154 (9th

Cir. 2005).1

On May 17, 2005, counsel for Respondents filed a notice of change in law, arguing that

this case must be transferred to the Ninth Circuit pursuant to the recently passed REAL ID Act

of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, Div. B, §§ 106(a), (c), 119 Stat. 231 (2005). Section 106(c) of

the Act provides that:

If an alien’s case, brought under section 2241 of title 28, United States

Code, and challenging a final administrative order of removal,

deportation, or exclusion, is pending in a district court on the date of

the enactment of this division, then the district court shall transfer the

case (or the part of the case that challenges the order of removal,

deportation, or exclusion) to the court of appeals for the circuit in

which a petition for review could have been properly filed under

section 242(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.

1252), as amended by this section, or under section 309(c)(4)(D) of

the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 

Case 3:03-cv-05390-TEH Document 22 Filed 08/04/05 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note). The court of appeals shall treat the

transferred case as if it had been filed pursuant to a petition for review

under such section 242, except that subsection (b)(1) of such section

shall not apply.

Id. § 106(c).

When the Court received Respondents’ notice of change in law, it ordered the parties to

meet and confer regarding the propriety of transfer. On June 17, 2005, the parties notified the

Court that Valencia did not agree with Respondents’ position that the case should be

transferred, and the parties stipulated that Valencia would file his opposition to transfer on or

before July 8, 2005, and that Respondents’ reply would be filed on or before July 22, 2005. 

However, Valencia failed to file any opposition or otherwise make any contact with the Court. 

On July 21, 2005, Respondents requested the Court to construe Valencia’s lack of opposition

as an acknowledgment that transfer of this case to the Ninth Circuit is required under the REAL

ID Act.

Upon review, the Court agrees with Respondents that the requirements for transfer

appear to have been met in this case. In light of the lack of opposition by Valencia after his

having had a full opportunity to do so – and on a briefing schedule set by stipulation of the

parties, no less – this Court finds good cause to grant Respondents’ request for transfer. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is, in its entirety, transferred to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, where it shall be treated as a petition for

review, pursuant to section 106(c) of the REAL ID Act of 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED 08/04/05 /s/ 

 THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 3:03-cv-05390-TEH Document 22 Filed 08/04/05 Page 2 of 2