Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04953/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-04953-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

GUMARO GARCIA GARNICA,

Petitioner,

 v.

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, et al.,

Respondents. 

No. C 07-4953 SBA

ORDER

[Docket No. 9]

Petitioner Gumaro Garcia Garnica has filed an emergency motion to stay, pursuant to Federal

Rule of Appellate Procedure 8(a), the order of his removal from the United States issued by the

respondents [Docket No. 9]. Rule 8(a)(1) provides that a party may move for “a stay of the judgment

or order of a district court pending appeal.” The Court DENIES the motion for several reasons. 

First, the docket does not reflect that an appeal has been taken, so there is currently no “pending

appeal.” See Bauer v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 1993 WL 515867, at *1 (N.D. Cal. 1993). Therefore, the

motion is denied on that ground as moot. Moreover, the relief the petitioner is seeking in the present

motion is a stay of the order of removal issued by the respondents. It is not seeking the stay of an “order

of a district court.” The Court concluded, with respect to the petitioner’s motion to stay the removal

order and for a temporary restraining order [Docket No. 2], that it does not have jurisdiction to stay the

order of removal from the United States. It follows then that the Court does not have jurisdiction to stay

the respondents’ order of removal pending appeal. 

Second, in those instances in which an appeal is pending, a party seeking a stay pending appeal

must show either “probability of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury” or that

“serious legal questions are raised and that the balance of hardships tips sharply in [his] favor”). Lopez

v. Heckler, 713 F.2d 1432, 1435 (9th Cir. 1983). This is nearly the identical legal standard, from

Maharaj v. Ashcroft, 295 F.3d 963, 966 (9th Cir. 2002), the Court considered when it denied the

petitioner’s underlying motion to stay and motion for a temporary restraining order. The Court found

that in view of the unique facts and circumstances of this case, its procedural history, and the relief

Case 4:07-cv-04953-SBA Document 10 Filed 09/28/07 Page 1 of 2
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

sought by the petitioner, that it lacked jurisdiction under the provisions of the REAL ID Act to hear the

petitioner’s claim, and therefore the petitioner did not meet the factors necessary for a temporary

restraining order. Even if there were a pending appeal, the Court would find that, given the same facts

and legal standards that led to the conclusion that a temporary restraining order was not warranted,

would lead it to conclude that the motion to stay pending appeal should be denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

September 28, 2007 _________________________________

Saundra Brown Armstrong 

United States District Judge

Case 4:07-cv-04953-SBA Document 10 Filed 09/28/07 Page 2 of 2