Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00290/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-00290-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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

WO JKM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John Emmanuel Ferron, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Eric H. Holder, Jr., et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 11-0290-PHX-GMS (MEA)

ORDER

Petitioner John Emmanuel Ferron (A015-214-221), who is confined in the Eloy

Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis

(Doc. 3). The Court will grant the Application and dismiss the Petition as moot in part and

for lack of jurisdiction in part.

Petitioner challenges an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) November 24, 2010 order of

removal directing that he be deported to Jamaica. Petitioner claims that the order of removal

is unlawful because the IJ did not give him an opportunity to defend himself. Petitioner also

claims that detention officers’ interference with his legal mail will cause the Board of

Immigration Appeals (BIA) to reject his appeal from the IJ’s order. The Court lacks

jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s first claim and his second claim is moot.

Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005),

the district courts do not have habeas corpus jurisdiction to review an order of removal. Iasu

Case 2:11-cv-00290-GMS--MEA Document 7 Filed 05/16/11 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 -

v. Smith 511 F.3d 881, 886 (9th Cir. 2007). The REAL ID Act amended 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(5) to provide that “a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals

in accordance 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]”). 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(5). This Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s challenge to his

November 2010 order of removal.

Petitioner’s claim that detention officers’ interference with his legal mail will cause

the BIA to reject his appeal is belied by exhibits he filed on April 4, 2010. Those documents

reveal that Petitioner’s appeal was accepted and is currently pending before the BIA. Doc. 6

at 1. Petitioner’s second claim is therefore moot. Accordingly, this action must be

dismissed.

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(Doc. 3) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1)

and this action are dismissed. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 16th day of May, 2011.

Case 2:11-cv-00290-GMS--MEA Document 7 Filed 05/16/11 Page 2 of 2