Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02719/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-02719-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 460
Nature of Suit: Deportation
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUBEN COLMENERO DURAN, NO. CIV.S-04-2719 GEB DAD PS

Plaintiff,

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND

v. RECOMMENDATIONS AND

TRANSFERRING ACTION TO THE

INS, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Defendant.

__________________________/

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a “petition for

de novo immigration review.” Through that petition plaintiff seeks

judicial review of a denial of an application for cancellation of

removal by the Immigration Court in San Francisco. Thus, the

petition challenges a final administrative order of removal. 

On May 23, 2005, plaintiff was ordered to show cause in

writing why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction. On June 22, 2005, plaintiff was granted an

extension of time up to and including July 13, 2005, in which to

respond to the court’s order. The time period expired and plaintiff

Case 2:04-cv-02719-GEB-DAD Document 12 Filed 10/26/05 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

2

did not respond to the court’s order. Accordingly, in findings and

recommendations filed July 29, 2005, the court recommended that this

action be dismissed without prejudice.

On August 8, 2005, objections to those findings and

recommendations were filed. The objections seek still additional

time to allow plaintiff to seek counsel to represent him in this

matter. However, those objections were submitted and signed by

plaintiff’s neighbor, not by plaintiff who is proceeding pro se in

this matter. Therefore, the filed objections are not authorized. 

Further, even considering those objections, the undersigned finds

that additional time will not aid plaintiff in the litigation of this

matter before this court since this case must be transferred to the

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pursuant to

legislation recently enacted by Congress.

More specifically, pursuant to Public Law 109-13, the REAL

ID Act of 2005, this Court is without jurisdiction to consider

plaintiff's challenge to his removal order. The REAL ID Act requires

transfer of cases challenging final orders of removal that are

pending in district courts to the court of appeals. See REAL ID Act

of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, § 106, 119 Stat. 231, 310-11 (May 11,

2005); Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1052-53 (9th Cir.

2005). In this regard, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued

a special notice regarding the preferred procedure for transferring

cases to the court of appeals pursuant to the REAL ID Act of 2005. 

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-02719-GEB-DAD Document 12 Filed 10/26/05 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

1 The special notice issued by the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals was most recently revised on October 3, 2005. The court

recognizes that the special notice suggests that district courts

allow the parties the opportunity to stipulate to, or brief the

propriety of, transfer. However, this initial step is not feasible

in this case since plaintiff is proceeding pro se and the government

has not appeared in this action.

3

Accordingly, pursuant to the REAL ID Act of 2005, and in

accordance with the special notice issued by the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed on July 29,

2005, are vacated;

2. This action is transferred to the Ninth Circuit Court

of Appeals as a Petition for Review;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to transmit the

entire case file to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals simultaneously

with this transfer order; and 

4. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is informed that

plaintiff has not sought a stay of removal from the district court.1

DATED: October 25, 2005.

DAD:th

orders/prose/duran2719.order.transfer

Case 2:04-cv-02719-GEB-DAD Document 12 Filed 10/26/05 Page 3 of 3