Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02983/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02983-0/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JESUS VALDEZ BERMUDEZ,

Petitioner,

 vs.

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION

AND CUSTOM ENFORCEMENT,

Respondent(s). 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No C 07-2831 VRW (PR)

No C 07-2983 VRW (PR)

(Doc # 2 & 3)

ORDER 

Petitioner, an alien detained on behalf of the United States Immigration

and Custom Enforcement ("ICE") at the Kern County Correctional Facility in

Bakersfield, California, has filed two pro se petitions for a writ of habeas corpus

under 28 USC § 2241 challenging the denial of his application for release on bail

pending removal proceedings. 

Because the petition filed as case number 07-2983 contains all the

allegations contained in the petition filed as case number 07-2831, and more, the

petition filed as case number 07-2831 is DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the

file for case number 07-2831 and terminate all motions therein as moot. All

future proceedings shall take place in case number 07-2983 only.

Case 3:07-cv-02983-VRW Document 6 Filed 07/24/07 Page 1 of 4
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

I

 Petitioner alleges that on July 8, 2005, he went before an Immigration

Judge ("IJ") on charges that he was removable based on two California

convictions – one for forgery (Cal Penal Code § 475(c)) and one for receiving

stolen property (id § 496). Petitioner argued that the convictions were not

aggravated felonies and the IJ continued the matter.

On July 11, 2005, the IJ informed petitioner that ICE was alleging

additional convictions in support of removal and denied petitioner's application

for release on bail pending removal proceedings.

On May 1, 2006, the IJ ordered petitioner removed and, on February 9,

2007, the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the order of removal and the

denial of release on bail pending removal proceedings The order of removal is 

currently pending in the Ninth Circuit.

II

Petitioner alleges that he was denied his due process right to a fair hearing

on his application for bail pending removal proceedings. Among other things, he

argues that the IJ was not an independent decisionmaker and did not properly

consider petitioner's permanent resident status and mitigating evidence.

The Supreme Court has held that when an alien concedes he is removable

within the meaning of 8 USC § 1226(c) (eg, because he has a conviction for an

aggravated felony or two or more convictions for crimes of moral turpitude), the

government may detain the alien without conducting an individualized bail

hearing pending removal proceedings. See Demore v Kim, 538 US 510, 522-23,

531 (2003). Petitioner argues that none of his state convictions constitute an

aggravated felony or crime of moral turpitude, thereby bringing him outside the

ambit of § 1226(c) and the rationale of Demore. Liberally construed, therefore,

Case 3:07-cv-02983-VRW Document 6 Filed 07/24/07 Page 2 of 4
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

To whatever extent petitioner claims that his continued detention pending

deportation is unlawful, said claim is dismissed as duplicative of his earlier action

raising the same claim. See Bermudez v Gonzales, No C 07-2799 VRW (PR)

(ND Cal June 12, 2007) (dismissing same claim as premature). But petitioner

again is reminded that he is free to refile the claim if his detention pending

deportation exceeds six months. 

3

his allegations appear to state a colorable claim for violation of his due process

right to a fair bail hearing and will be served. Cf Kim v Ziglar, 276 F3d 523, 539

(9th Cir 2002) (due process requires that IJ conduct bail hearing for lawful

permanent resident subject to detention provisions of § 1226(c)), rev's sub nom

Demore v Kim, 538 US 510 (2003).1

III 

Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (doc # 2) is DENIED. See

Knaubert v Goldsmith, 791 F2d 722, 728 (9th Cir 1986) (unless an evidentiary

hearing is required, the decision to appoint counsel is within the discretion of the

district court). Petitioner has clearly presented his claims for relief in the

petition and attachments thereto, and an order to show cause is issuing. Accord

Bashor v Risley, 730 F2d 1228, 1234 (9th Cir 1984) (although petitioner had no

background in law, denial of appointment of counsel within discretion of district

court where petitioner clearly presented issues in petition and accompanying

memorandum). The court will appoint counsel on its own motion if a evidentiary

hearing is later required. See Knaubert, 791 F2d at 728 (appointment of counsel

mandatory if evidentiary hearing is required). 

IV

For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown,

1. Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis (doc # 3)is

GRANTED.

2. The clerk shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order

Case 3:07-cv-02983-VRW Document 6 Filed 07/24/07 Page 3 of 4
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 4

and the petition and all attachments thereto upon the respondent (Director, ICE

Field Office, 630 Sansome Street, Room 590, San Francisco, CA 94111) and the

respondent's attorney, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of

California. The clerk shall also send a copy of the petition to the Attorney

General of the United States in Washington, DC. The clerk shall also serve a

copy of this order on the petitioner. 

3. Respondent shall file with this court and serve upon the

petitioner, within sixty (60) days of the issuance of this order, an answer

responding to the allegation of the petition and showing cause why a writ of

habeas corpus should not be issued. The respondent shall file with the answer a

copy of all documents that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented

by the petition. 

4. If petitioner wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so

by filing a traverse with the court and serving it upon the respondent within thirty

(30) days of his receipt of the answer. 

SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge 

G:\PRO-SE\VRW\OTHER.07\Bermudez2.or1.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-02983-VRW Document 6 Filed 07/24/07 Page 4 of 4