Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00688/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00688-0/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 (federa

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MIGUEL PEREZ, : 

 : 

Petitioner, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 06-00688-KD-B 

 :

DAVID O. STREIFF, et al., :

 :

Respondents. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is an action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 2241 by Miguel

Perez, who alleges that he is a citizen and native of Dominican

Republic, and that he is being improperly detained by the U.S.

Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(“ICE”). (Doc. 1). This action has been referred to the undersigned

for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C § 636(b)(1)(B)

and Local Rule 72.1(c) and is now ready for consideration. The

record is adequate to determine Perez’s claims; thus, no evidentiary

hearing is required. Following a careful review of the record, it

is recommended that the instant petition be dismissed, without

prejudice, because it is premature.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Perez indicates that he is a citizen of Dominican Republic, and

that he has been a legal permanent resident of the United States

since 1987. (Doc. 1).

2. Following a criminal conviction in New York for the criminal

Case 2:06-cv-00688-KD-B Document 23 Filed 08/10/07 Page 1 of 8
2

sale of a controlled substance, an Immigration Judge, on February

8, 1999, ordered Perez removed from the United States to the

Dominican Republic. (Doc. 15, Ex. C). Perez appealed the removal

order to the Bureau of Immigration Affairs, which denied and

dismissed Perez’s appeal on July 23, 1999. (Doc. 15, Ex. B).

Perez’s motion to reopen his case before the Bureau of Immigration

Appeal was denied as untimely filed on December 5, 2001. (Doc. 15,

Ex. D). 

3. Perez filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging

his order of removal in the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York on July 9, 2004. (Doc. 15, Ex. E).

The district court ordered the petition transferred to the 2nd

Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to Section 106(a)(5) of the Real

I.D. Act of 2005. In its order transferring Perez’s petition, the

district court ordered that Perez’s removal or deportation be stayed

pending a ruling on Perez’s case by the appeals court. (Id.). 

4. Perez completed his sentence for the underlying felony

conviction on August 10, 2005. (Doc. 1). Following his release from

state custody, Perez entered ICE custody on September 1, 2005.

(Id.).

5. Perez filed the instant petition for habeas corpus relief on

October 17, 2006, while his initial habeas petition was still

pending before the Second Circuit. In the instant petition, Peres

seeks his immediate release from ICE custody and an award of fees

Case 2:06-cv-00688-KD-B Document 23 Filed 08/10/07 Page 2 of 8
3

and costs pursuant to the Equal Access to Justice Act. 

6. Subsequent to the Perez’s filing of the instant petition, the

Second Circuit Court of Appeals, on December 12, 2006, dismissed

Perez’s action for his failure to file a brief, and entered an order

finding as moot Perez’s motion for stay of removal and deportation.

(Doc. 15, Ex. F). 

7. On January 4, 2007, Deportation Officer Ronald Claude

requested travel documents from the Dominican Republic in order to

remove Perez from the United States, pursuant to the removal order

dated February 2, 1999. (Doc. 15, Ex. G). 

8. On January 10, 2007, Perez mailed a letter to Deportation

Officer Claude wherein he advised that he had filed a second notice

of appeal with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, along with a

second request for stay of deportation. (Doc. 15, Ex. H).

9. A review of the docket of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals

reveals that Perez did in fact file a second motion for stay of

removal on January 10, 2007. The stay was granted by order of the

Court on April 5, 2007. See Perez v. Wilson, No. 05-3542-AG (2nd

Cir. April 5, 2007). 

10. In their response to Perez’s habeas petition, Respondents

assert that Perez remains detained because of his own actions. (Doc.

15). More specifically, Respondents assert that because Perez has

petitioned for a stay of removal, he has prevented his deportation

to Dominican Republic. Thus, his habeas petition should be denied.

Case 2:06-cv-00688-KD-B Document 23 Filed 08/10/07 Page 3 of 8
1 8 U.S.C. § 1231, entitled “Detention and Removal of Aliens to be

removed,” states in pertinent part:

(a) Detention, release, and removal of aliens ordered removed

(1) Removal period

(A) In general

Except as otherwise provided in this section, when an

alien is ordered removed, the Attorney General shall

remove the alien from the United States within a

period of 90 days (in this section referred to as the

“removal period”).

(B) Beginning of period

The removal period begins on the latest of the

 following:

(I) the date the order of removal becomes

 administratively final.

 

 (ii) If the removal order is judicially reviewed and 

 if a court orders a stay of the removal of the 

 alien, the date of the court’s final Order.

(iii) If the alien is detained or confined (except 

 under an Immigration process), the date the 

 alien is released from detention or confinement.

©) Suspension of period

The removal period shall be extended beyond a period

of 90 days and the alien may remain in detention

during such extended period if the alien fails or

refuses to make timely application in good faith

for travel or other documents necessary to the alien’s

departure or conspires or acts to prevent the alien’s

removal subject to an order of removal.

4

(Id.). 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The United States Supreme Court, in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S.

678, 687-88 (2001), held that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 confers jurisdiction

on federal courts to entertain actions such as this. In

interpreting 8 U.S.C. § 12311, the Zadvydas Court held that the

Case 2:06-cv-00688-KD-B Document 23 Filed 08/10/07 Page 4 of 8
5

statute “limits an alien’s post-removal period detention to a period

reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the

United States. It does not permit indefinite detention.” Zadvydas,

533 U.S. at 689. The Court went on to hold that “six months [was]

a presumptively reasonable period of time to detain a removable

alien awaiting deportation” pursuant to § 1231. See Akinwale v.

Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050, 1051 (11th Cir. 2002).

Relying on the Zadvydas decision, the Eleventh Circuit Court

of Appeals, in Akinwale, held that the six-month period “must have

expired at the time [Petitioner’s] petition was filed in order to

state a claim under Zadvydas.” Akinwale, 287 F.3d at 1052. The

Akinwale Court also noted that the six-month period could be

interrupted by a petitioner’s motion for a stay of deportation or

removal. See Id., n.4 (“Akinwale was taken into custody on November

17, 1999, and interrupted the running of time under Zadvydas by

moving on December 3, 1999, for a stay of deportation in his prior

appeal to this Court. The stay was granted on January 1, 2000.

....Akinwale subsequently filed the § 2241 petition in this case on

March 21, 2000. Thus, Akinwale, unlike the aliens in Zadvyas, chose

to simultaneously challenge issues related to his removal order and

his post-removal period detention. Therefore, Akinwale did not have

even an unencumbered month of detention prior to filing his § 2241

petition, let alone the requisite six months.”); 8 U.S.C. §

1231(a)(1)(c) (“The removal period shall be extended beyond a period

Case 2:06-cv-00688-KD-B Document 23 Filed 08/10/07 Page 5 of 8
6

of 90 days and the alien may remain in detention during such

extended period if the alien fails or refuses to make timely

application in good faith for travel or other documents necessary

to the alien’s departure or conspires or acts to prevent the alien’s

removal subject to an order of removal.”).

A review of the record in this matter reveals that on June 20,

2005, Perez’s removal was stayed pending review of the removal order

by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. (Doc. 15, Ex. E). Thus, the

stay was in effect at the time Perez filed the instant habeas

petition on October 17, 2006. The stay was not lifted until the

Second Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed Perez’s appeal on December

12, 2006. (Doc. 15, Ex. F). The lifting of the stay was short lived

however as the record reflects that Perez filed a second motion for

stay of removal with the Second Circuit on January 10, 2007. The

stay request was granted by the court on April 5, 2007. See Perez

v. Wilson, No. 05-3542-AG (2nd Cir. April 5, 2007). In light of the

pending stay of removal, the six month presumptive period for

removal has not yet commenced, let alone expired. Moreover, as

argued by the Government, by seeking a second stay, Perez, as

opposed to the Government has prevent his deportation to the

Dominican Republic. Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Perez

has failed to establish that his continued detention is improper

under 8 U.S.C. § 1321(a)(1)( c).

Case 2:06-cv-00688-KD-B Document 23 Filed 08/10/07 Page 6 of 8
2

As the record reflects that Perez was recently transferred to a

jail in New York, any new petitions should be filed in the district

where he is currently housed.

7

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, the undersigned recommends that this Court

deny Perez’s request for release under order of supervision, and

dismiss, without prejudice, Perez’s petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

as prematurely filed, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1231. The dismissal is

without prejudice to Perez’s right to file a new habeas petition2 in

the future when he is able to state a claim under Zadvydas.

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to the report and recommendation of the undersigned

magistrate judge.

Done this the 10th day of August 2007.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

 

Case 2:06-cv-00688-KD-B Document 23 Filed 08/10/07 Page 7 of 8
MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS

AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION

AND FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

1. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or anything

in it must, within ten days of the date of service of this document, file

specific written objections with the clerk of court. Failure to do so

will bar a de novo determination by the district judge of anything in the

recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual findings

of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)©); Lewis v. Smith, 855

F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988). The procedure for challenging the

findings and recommendations of the magistrate judge is set out in more

detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 (June 1, 1997), which provides, in part, that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a magistrate

judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a matter excepted by

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing a “Statement of Objection

to Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation” within ten days after

being served with a copy of the recommendation, unless a

different time is established by order. The statement of

objection shall specify those portions of the recommendation

to which objection is made and the basis for the objection.

The objecting party shall submit to the district judge, at the

time of filing the objection, a brief setting forth the

party’s arguments that the magistrate judge’s recommendation

should be reviewed de novo and a different disposition made.

It is insufficient to submit only a copy of the original brief

submitted to the magistrate judge, although a copy of the

original brief may be submitted or referred to and

incorporated into the brief in support of the objection.

Failure to submit a brief in support of the objection may be

deemed an abandonment of the objection.

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a Court

of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment can be appealed.

2. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing party may

submit a brief opposing the objection within ten (10) days of being

served with a copy of the statement of objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72;

SD ALA LR 72.4(b). 

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). Pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), the magistrate judge finds

that the tapes and original records in this action are adequate for

purposes of review. Any party planning to object to this recommendation,

but unable to pay the fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial

determination that transcription is necessary is required before the

United States will pay the cost of the transcript.

Case 2:06-cv-00688-KD-B Document 23 Filed 08/10/07 Page 8 of 8