Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00677/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00677-0/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

SHEGAW AMBACHEW, ) 1:05-cv-00677-OWW- TAG HC

)

)

Petitioner, ) REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

) REGARDING PETITIONER’S MOTION

 ) FOR STAY OF FINAL ORDER OF 

 ) DEPORTATION (Doc. 1)

v. )

) ORDER DENYING PETITIONER’S 

) MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (Doc. 1)

JOHN ASHCROFT, et al. ) 

 ) ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

) TO SEND PETITIONER A BLANK FORM

Respondents. ) FOR FEDERAL PRISONERS FILING 

 ) PURSUANT TO § 2241

 

 

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

This case was initiated on May 26, 2005, when Shegaw Ambachew (“Petitioner”) filed with

the Court a document entitled: “Emergency Motion for a Stay of the Final Order of Deportation

Pending Judicial Review of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant 28 U.S.C. 2241

Challenging Final Order On All Constitutional Issues, Claims, and Grounds” (the “Motion”). 

(Doc.1). In his Motion, Petitioner alleges the following: that he is a citizen of Ethiopia who entered

the United States without proper documentation on December 20, 1997; that removal proceedings

Case 1:05-cv-00677-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 06/14/05 Page 1 of 7
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

The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases can be applied to petitions other than those brought under § 2254 at the Court’s

discretion. See, Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases.

2

were initiated on April 23, 1998; that he requested both asylum under the Immigration and

Naturalization Act (“INA”) § section 208(a) and waiver of removal under INA § 241(b)(3); and that

a final order of removal was issued on September 3, 1998, by the immigration judge (“IJ”), who also

denied Petitioner’s request for asylum. (Doc. 1, pp. 9-10). On December 3, 2002, the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) summarily affirmed the IJ’s decision. (Id. at p. 10). A subsequent

motion to reopen the proceedings to hear the merits of Petitioner’s request for a waiver of removal

was denied by the BIA on February 6, 2003. (Id. at p. 11). Petitioner alleges that, if removed to

Ethiopia, he would be subject to “Torture, persecution and Death.” (Id.). 

In the instant Motion, Petitioner alleges legal errors in the removal proceedings to which he is

presently subject. Petitioner contends that the IJ and the BIA deprived him of his substantive and

procedural due process rights by failing to inform him of various legal options available to him at the

time of the removal proceedings. (Doc. 1, pp. 3-4). Petitioner also alleges that his trial counsel was

ineffective in failing to present evidence at the removal proceedings that Petitioner was tortured in

Ethiopia, in failing to timely file his appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and in failing to

attempt to reopen the removal proceedings after the removal order had been issued . (Doc. 1, p. 6). 

Petitioner expressly seeks an order vacating and setting aside the final order of removal and the

remand of his case to the BIA or IJ for further proceedings. (Id. at p. 7). Petitioner also requests an

emergency stay of all removal proceedings, as well as appointment of counsel to represent him. 

(Id.). 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires the Court to make a preliminary review

of each Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition “[i]f it plainly

appears from the face of the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district

court.” Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases1; see, also, Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490

(9th Cir. 1990).

///

///

Case 1:05-cv-00677-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 06/14/05 Page 2 of 7
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

DISCUSSION

A. Failure to File A Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus.

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show

that “he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (a). A petition for writ

of habeas corpus must therefore specify the grounds for relief. Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing

§ 2254 Cases. The petition must also allege the facts surrounding petitioner’s incarceration.

28 U.S.C. § 2242. The petitioner must make specific factual allegations that would entitle him to

habeas corpus relief if they are true. O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990); United

States v. Poopola, 881 F.2d 811, 812 (9th Cir. 1989). In addition, a petition presented in pro se must

be upon the form approved by the court. Rule 2 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Local Rule

81-190. These rules ensure that all information needed is before the court. Each ground for relief

must be clearly stated and allege what federal constitutional violation has occurred, along with

providing facts that support the grounds for relief. If a petition contains no grounds entitling the

petitioner to habeas corpus relief, the court must dismiss the petition. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing

§ 2254 Cases. 

Although Petitioner’s Motion alludes to the filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and

its contents also seek to invoke this Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the Motion is not

styled as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and it does not contain enumerated claims of federal

constitutional violations. Further, the Motion was not filed on the standard form provided for a

federal prisoner seeking habeas relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and it is not signed under

penalty of perjury, both of which are requirements in this District for the filing of a habeas corpus

petition. Rule 2 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Local Rule 81-190. Moreover, the Motion

recites that “Petitioner will file a separate brief raising all the constitutional issues, claims and

grounds upon which Petitioner is entitled to mandatory statutorily reliefs and humanitarian relieves

[sic]....” (Doc. 1, p. 2). 

In short, it is unclear whether Petitioner intends the Motion to serve as a petition for writ of

habeas corpus, or whether Petitioner is simply moving the Court for certain types of relief in

anticipation of filing a formal petition for writ of habeas corpus. If the Motion is intended only as a

Case 1:05-cv-00677-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 06/14/05 Page 3 of 7
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

vehicle to request certain types of relief in anticipation of Petitioner filing a formal petition for writ

of habeas corpus, then this Court is presently without jurisdiction to act because no petition for writ

of habeas corpus has been filed that invokes the habeas corpus jurisdiction of this Court. If the

Motion is intended to serve as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, then, for the reasons discussed

above, the Motion is, even under liberal standards of construction, insufficient to be considered a

habeas corpus petition. 

Petitioner, however, will be granted leave, should he so desire, to file an “amended petition”

using the appropriate form for federal prisoners. Should Petitioner decide to file an amended

petition for a writ of habeas corpus in this Court, the Court notes that, given the nature of the

allegations contained in the instant Motion, which challenge the final order of removal, it appears

that the Court would be without jurisdiction to consider even a properly filed habeas petition. 

On May 11, 2005, Public Law 109-13 was enacted. Section 106 of that law (the Real ID Act

of 2005, hereinafter “RIDA”), is entitled “Judicial Review of Orders of Removal.” Section 106

amends 28 U.S.C. § 1252, providing in pertinent part as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section

2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision...a petition for

review filed in an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section shall be the

sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued under

any provision of this Act, except as provided in subsection (e)....”

(Emphasis supplied.)

Section 106 thus divests the district court of jurisdiction in habeas corpus cases involving

challenges to a final order of removal, deportation, or exclusion, and places exclusive jurisdiction for

judicial review of such orders in the federal appeals court for the district in which the removal order

was issued. In this case, Petitioner’s Motion alleges a series of errors in the proceedings culminating

in a final order of removal. Although Petitioner has yet to file a formal habeas petition enumerating

his claims of federal constitutional violations, should he file such a petition pursuant to this Order,

and should that petition contain claims challenging a “final order or removal, deportation, or

exclusion,” this Court would lack jurisdiction to proceed and would, pursuant to the RIDA,

recommend to the District Judge that the case be transferred to the venue specified in Section 106, 

///

Case 1:05-cv-00677-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 06/14/05 Page 4 of 7
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

 Nothing in this Order would prevent Petitioner from filing a habeas corpus petition challenging a final order of

removal or deportation directly in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the form of a petition for review.

3

 Regarding the granting of a temporary stay, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals General Order 6.4 Emergency Motions

(c) Motions for Stay of Deportation of Removal in Petitions for Review, provides in pertinent part that: “Upon the filing of

a motion or request for stay of removal or deportation, the order of removal or deportation is temporarily stayed until further

order of the court.” 

5

i.e., the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the federal appeals court for the district

in which Petitioner’s final order of removal was issued.2

B. Request for Stay.

A motion for stay pending a district court’s review of a petition for writ of habeas corpus on

the merits is reviewed under the same standards used to evaluate motions for preliminary

injunctive relief. Andreiu v. Ashcroft, 253 F.3d 477 (9th Cir. 2001). The petitioner must show “either

a probability of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious legal

questions are raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in petitioner’s favor.” Id. at 480

(quoting Abbassi v. I.N.S., 143 F.3d 513, 514 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Here, Petitioner’s Motion, as presently framed, is insufficient to be considered as a habeas

corpus petition; moreover, the Motion states that Petitioner “will file a separate brief raising all the

constitutional issues, claims and grounds upon which Petitioner is entitled to mandatory statutorily

reliefs and relieves [sic]....” (Doc. 1, p.2.) In the absence of a proper petition for writ of habeas

corpus, the undersigned concludes that it would be premature to recommend that a stay be granted

pending review of such an as-yet-unfiled pleading. Conversely, in the event Petitioner does file a

petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging a final order of deportation or removal, the district

court would lack jurisdiction to consider the petition because the entire habeas corpus proceeding

would then be within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, 

including any emergency motion for a temporary stay of deportation or removal.3 28 U.S.C. § 1252. 

Accordingly, at this time, any ruling on Petitioner’s request for a stay is premature.

 C. Motion for Appointment of Counsel.

There currently exists no right to the appointment of counsel in habeas proceedings. See,

e.g., Anderson v. Heinze, 258 F.2d 479, 481 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U.S. 889 (1958); Mitchell

Case 1:05-cv-00677-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 06/14/05 Page 5 of 7
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

6

v. Wyrick, 727 F.2d 773 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 823 (1984). Although Title 18 U.S.C.

§ 3006A authorizes the appointment of counsel at any stage of the case “if the interests of justice so

require,” see, Rule 8(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, the Court has determined that the

interests of justice do not require the assistance of counsel at this stage in the proceedings. Should

the Court find otherwise, it can sua sponte issue an Order of Appointment. To date, however,

Petitioner has not filed a habeas petition invoking the jurisdiction of this Court; therefore, the Court

finds that no such appointment of counsel is warranted at this time. 

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Petitioner’s Motion be

DENIED without prejudice, with respect to the portion thereof requesting a stay of the final order of

removal.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Court Judge

assigned to the case 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. Within

thirty (30) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation, 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 Report 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 Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

ORDERS 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Petitioner a blank form petition for

prisoners filing pursuant to § 2241. 

2. Petitioner is granted leave to file an amended petition by filling out the form petition

in its entirety within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order. The

Case 1:05-cv-00677-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 06/14/05 Page 6 of 7
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

7

amended petition should be clearly and boldly titled “AMENDED PETITION,”

contain the appropriate case number, and be an original signed under penalty of

perjury. Petitioner is advised that the form petition must set forth all of the claims for

relief, including the facts and arguments in support of those claims. Petitioner should

also note that every pleading to which an amendment is permitted must be retyped or

rewritten and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or

superseded pleading. Local Rule 15-220.

3. Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel (Doc. 1), is DENIED without

prejudice and with leave to file a new motion for appointment of counsel at a later

time.

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order may result in a

recommendation that the Motion or a subsequent amended petition be dismissed pursuant to Local

Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00677-OWW -TAG Document 6 Filed 06/14/05 Page 7 of 7