Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06524/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06524-1/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALONSO LIZARRAGA-RIOS, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

R. D. ANDREWS, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:04-06524-AWI-LJO (HC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

Petitioner is detained by the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(“ICE”) and is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 

On November 10, 2004, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus. 

On January 28, 2005, Respondent filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of

jurisdiction and for lack of merit.

On March 16, 2005, this Court issued a Findings and Recommendation that recommended

Respondent’s motion to dismiss be granted and the petition be dismissed with prejudice.

On April 12, 2005, Petitioner filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. He

Case 1:04-cv-06524-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 05/27/05 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

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 2

stated that he never received Respondent’s motion to dismiss and thus was denied an opportunity to

respond. 

On April 21, 2005, the Court stayed the Findings and Recommendation and granted

Petitioner an opportunity to file his opposition to Respondent’s motion to dismiss.

On May 12, 2005, Petitioner filed his opposition.

On May 24, 2005, Respondent notified the Court of intervening law which addresses the

scope of judicial review of removal orders.

DISCUSSION

On May 11, 2005, the President signed into law the “Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations Act for Defense, The Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005.” Division B

of the Act is titled “REAL ID Act of 2005.” Section 106 of the Act amended Section 242 of the

Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1252) so as to render a petition for review to the courts

of appeal the sole and exclusive means of review of an administrative order of removal, deporation,

or exclusion. Section 106(c) provides:

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 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1101 note). 

In this case, Petitioner challenges the Immigration Judge’s order of deportation, and the case

was pending at the time the Act went into effect. Therefore, the statute requires that this Court

transfer the matter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

RECOMMENDATION

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the petition for writ of habeas corpus be

TRANSFERRED to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

This Findings and Recommendation is submitted to the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii, United

States District Court Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304

of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Case 1:04-cv-06524-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 05/27/05 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

27

28

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California cd 3

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the

court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Replies to the objections shall be served and

filed within ten (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the objections. 

The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 27, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06524-AWI-LJO Document 13 Filed 05/27/05 Page 3 of 3