Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00555/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00555-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
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 - 07cv555

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS ARMAS-RAMIREZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 07cv555 WQH (JMA)

ORDER

vs.

ANTHONY CERONE, Field Office

Director Enforcement, et.al.,

Respondents.

Hayes, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed by Carlos Armas-Ramirez. (Doc. # 1.)

BACKGROUND

On March 23, 2007, Petitioner filed the Petition, asserting that he has been held in

detention without bond by the Department of Homeland Security since May 4, 2004.

Petitioner states in his Petition that he is proceeding pro se “because petitioner can’t afford to

pay a five thousand dollar fee his attorney . . . is asking for this Habeas Corpus.” (Doc. # 1 at

2.)

On May 16, 2007, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause, which states, in part:

Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE no later than June 18, 2007

why the petition should not be granted by: filing a written return; filing copies

of all documents, orders and transcripts relevant to the petition; and filing a

Case 3:07-cv-00555-WQH-JMA Document 8 Filed 07/13/07 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 - 07cv555

memorandum of law and fact fully stating Respondents’ position and making a

recommendation regarding the need for an evidentiary hearing on the petition.

(May 16, 2007 Order to Show Cause, Doc. # 4, at 2.)

On June 15, 2007, Respondents filed “Government’s Return to Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus” (“Return”) which states, in full:

Petitioner Armas complains that he is being detained without bond pending his

removal proceedings, which were recently reopened and remanded to the

Immigration Judge. On June 14, 2007, the Department of Homeland Security

set bond in the amount of $5000. [See attached exhibit.] Therefore, this case

should be dismissed as moot.

(Doc. # 5.) The exhibit attached to the Return is a document signed by Respondent Anthony

Cerone, Assistant Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement setting

Petitioner’s bond at $5,000. This document contains no reasons for the decision or facts

regarding Petitioner’s case.

On June 25, 2007, Petitioner filed a “Return in Answer to Government to Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus” (“Traverse”), which states, in part:

Honorable Court, Petitioner respectfully requests[s] this court gives an ultimate

decision, on the merits of Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus, the DHS sought

initial opposition to Petitioner’[s] Writ, however, DHS’ Assistant Field Office

Director has offered a release set bond in the amount of $5000. . . . In response,

Petitioner ask[s] this Court to have an individualized bond hearing before a

neutral judge, to have a bond reduction or to be release[d] on its own

recognizance; due to the fact that Petitioner is indigent and he has been in

custody of DHS for over three years.

(Doc. # 7.)

DISCUSSION

A writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 may only be extended to a person

who “is in custody under or by color of the authority of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

“Habeas corpus jurisdiction has been extended beyond that which the most literal reading of

the statute might require to individuals who, though not subject to immediate physical

imprisonment, are subject to restraints not shared by the public generally that significantly

confine and restrain their freedom. Thus, federal courts have exercised habeas corpus

jurisdiction over a state prisoner released on parole, a convict released on his own

recognizance pending execution of his sentence, an individual sentenced to attend an alcohol

Case 3:07-cv-00555-WQH-JMA Document 8 Filed 07/13/07 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 - 07cv555

rehabilitation program for fourteen hours, and an individual who, though not in physical

custody, was subject to a final order of deportation.” Miranda v. Reno, 238 F.3d 1156,

1158-59 (9th Cir. 2001) (quotations and citations omitted). 

Despite the fact that bond has been set in Petitioner’s case, he is still “in custody” within

the meaning of the 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and therefore is entitled to maintain this action.

Moreover, as demonstrated by Petitioner’s Traverse, he has not received all of the relief he has

requested. Therefore, his case is not moot.

No later than twenty days from the date this Order is filed, Respondents shall file an

amended Return which complies with the Court’s May 16, 2007 Order to Show Cause

requiring Respondents to show cause “why the petition should not be granted by: filing a

written return; filing copies of all documents, orders and transcripts relevant to the petition;

and filing a memorandum of law and fact fully stating Respondents’ position and making a

recommendation regarding the need for an evidentiary hearing on the petition.” (May 16, 2007

Order to Show Cause, Doc. # 4, at 2.) If Petitioner wishes to reply to the amended Return, he

may do so by way of a traverse filed no later than twenty days after the date Respondents file

the amended Return.

Additionally, Respondents shall allow Petitioner review of his bond determination

pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19.

No later than twenty days from the date this Order is filed, Respondents shall file a

status report in this case. This case will remain open pending further order of this Court.

DATED: July 13, 2007

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00555-WQH-JMA Document 8 Filed 07/13/07 Page 3 of 3