Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02699/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02699-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY FRIDAY UDOM,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 11-CV-2699 - IEG (NLS)

ORDER:

(1) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION

TO EXTEND/REOPEN THE TIME

TO FILE AN APPEAL

[Doc. No. 16]

(2) DENYING MOTION TO

PROCEED IFP ON APPEAL

[Doc. No. 15]

vs.

U.S. IMMIGRATION, CUSTOMS

ENFORCEMENT,

Respondent.

Presently before the Court is Petitioner Anthony Friday Udom (“Petitioner”)’s motion to

extend/reopen the time to file an appeal and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)

on appeal. [Doc. Nos. 15-16.] For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motions.

BACKGROUND

On November 17, 2011, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). [Doc. No. 1, Petition.] In the Petition, Petitioner

requests that the Court determine whether his 1998 conviction for possession of marijuana for sale

constitutes an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) or a controlled substances

conviction under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(b)(i) and can be used to support a charge of deportability. [Id.

- 1 - 11cv2699-IEG (NLS)

Case 3:11-cv-02699-IEG-NLS Document 19 Filed 02/16/12 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

at 4-7.] 

On January 12, 2012, Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgment. [Doc. No. 10.] On

January 13, 2012, Respondent filed a return to the Petition. [Doc. No. 5.] On January 27, 2012,

Petitioner filed his traverse. [Doc. No. 11.]

On February 6, 2012, the Court denied the Petition and Petitioner’s motion for summary

judgment, and the Court determined that a certificate of appealability was not required in this case. 

[Doc. No. 12.] On February 6, 2012, the Clerk entered judgment against Petitioner in favor of

Respondent. [Doc. No. 13.] On February 13, 2012, Petitioner filed a notice of appeal from the

Court’s Order denying his Petition and motion for summary judgment along with the two present

motions. [Doc. Nos. 14-16.]

DISCUSSION

I. Motion to Reopen/Extend the Time to File Appeal

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a) provides that a notice of appeal in a civil case “must

be filed with the district clerk within 30 days after entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” The

Court issued its order and judgment was entered on February 6, 2012. [Doc. Nos. 12-13.] Petitioner

filed his notice of appeal on February 13, 2012, seven days later. [Doc. No. 14.] Therefore,

Petitioner’s notice of appeal is timely and there is no need to reopen or extend the time for him to file

his appeal. Accordingly, the Court DENIES as moot Petitioner’s motion to reopen/extend the time

to file appeal.

II. Motion to Proceed IFP on Appeal

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) provides that “an appeal may not be taken in forma pauperis if the trial

court certifies in writing that it is not taken in good faith.” “The good faith requirement is satisfied

if the petitioner seeks review of any issue that is ‘not frivolous.’” Gardner v. Pogue, 558 F.2d 548,

551 (9th Cir. 1977) (quoting Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 445 (1962)). For purposes of

section 1915, an appeal is frivolous if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact. See Neitzke v.

Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1984).

In the Petition, Petitioner argues that his 1998 conviction for possession of marijuana for sale

in violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11359 does not constitute an “aggravated felony”

- 2 - 11cv2699-IEG (NLS)

Case 3:11-cv-02699-IEG-NLS Document 19 Filed 02/16/12 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

under 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) or a controlled substances conviction under 8 U.S.C. §

1227(a)(2)(B)(i) and cannot be used to support a charge of deportability. [Petition at 4-7.] This is the

only issue raised in the Petition. The Ninth Circuit has consistently held that a conviction for

possession of marijuana for sale in violation of California Health and Safety Code § 11359 is

categorically an “aggravated felony” as defined in 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(B) that renders a person

removeable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). See Zuniga-Perez v. Holder, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS

23104, at *5 (9th Cir. 2011); Solorzano-Rodriguez v. Holder, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 20495, at *2 (9th

Cir. 2011); Pedroza-Macias v. Holder, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 22599, at *1-2 (9th Cir. 2011); Salgado

v. Holder, 436 Fed. Appx. 751, 751 (9th Cir. 2011); Ruano-Sandoval v. Holder, 416 Fed. Appx. 667,

667 (9th Cir. 2011); see also Rendon v. Mukasey, 520 F.3d 967, 976 (9th Cir. 2008) (“possession of

a controlled substance with the intent to sell contains a trafficking element and is an aggravated

felony”). Therefore, Petitioner’s appeal lacks any arguable basis in law and is frivolous. Accordingly,

the Court concludes that an appeal would not be taken in good faith, and the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s

motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal.

CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, the Court DENIES as moot Petitioner’s motion to extend/reopen the

time to file an appeal, and the Court DENIES Petitioner’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 16, 2012 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 3 - 11cv2699-IEG (NLS)

Case 3:11-cv-02699-IEG-NLS Document 19 Filed 02/16/12 Page 3 of 3