Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00688/USCOURTS-alsd-2_06-cv-00688-1/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 (federa

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

MIGUEL PEREZ, :

Plaintiff, :

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

DAVID O. STREIFF, et al., :

Defendants. :

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). Petitioner has also filed a Motion

for a Preliminary Injunction. (Doc. 12). Petitioner seeks to

prevent his removal from the United States, and argues that the

removal decision was based on “erroneous information supplied at

Petitioner’s final deportation proceedings and subsequent

immigration appeal.” (Id.). Petitioner further argues that he will

suffer immediate and irreparable injury and that he “may even face

death” if the Court does not issue an injunction preventing his

removal.

Petitioner’s Motion has been referred to the undersigned

Magistrate Judge for a recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S. C. §

636(b)(1)(B), Local Rule 72.2 and the standing order of general

reference. Based upon a review of Petitioner’s Motion and

Case 2:06-cv-00688-KD-B Document 24 Filed 08/13/07 Page 1 of 5
1

 By separate Order, the undersigned has contempareneoulsy

issued a Report and Recommendation wherein it is recommended that

Petitioner’s petition be denied as premature. As set forth in

the Report, Petitioner filed his habeas action despite the fact

that his appeal of the removal order is still pending before the

Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Because the appeal is still

pending, the presumptively reasonable six-month period for

holding a removable alien awaiting deportation pursuant to § 1231

has not yet commenced. See Akinwale v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050,

1051 (11th Cir. 2002). 

Complaint, it is recommended that Petitioner’s Motion for an

Injunction be DENIED1.

In order to prevail on a request for a temporary restraining

order, Plaintiff must show: (1)a substantial likelihood that he

will ultimately prevail on the merits; (2) that he will suffer

irreparable injury unless the injunction issues; (3) that the

threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the

proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) that the

injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest.

Palmer v. Braun, 287 F.3d 1325, 1329 (llth Cir. 2002); ZarduiQuinatana v. Richard, 768 F.2d 1213, 1216 (llth Cir. 1985). A

temporary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy not to

be granted unless the movant clearly carries the burden of

persuasion as to the four requisites. Id. at 1216; McDonald’s Corp.

V. Robertson, 147 F.3d 1301, 1306 (llth Cir. 1988). It is

mandatory that all four factors are satisfied. United States v.

Jefferson County, 720 F.2d 1511, 1519 (llth Cir. 1983). Moreover,

injunctive relief will not issue unless the complained of conduct

Case 2:06-cv-00688-KD-B Document 24 Filed 08/13/07 Page 2 of 5
is imminent and no other relief or compensation is available.

Cunningham v. Adams, 808 F.2d 815, 821 (llth Cir. 1987).

In the case sub judice, Petitioner has failed to show that

there is a substantial likelihood that he will ultimately prevail

on the merits of this action. He has also failed to set forth any

facts which suggest that he will suffer irreparable harm, or that

he is in imminent danger. His conclusory assertion that he may even

face death if deported is not sufficient. As noted supra,

Petitioner’s appeal of the deportation decision is currently pending

before the Second Circuit of Appeals, and an Order staying his

deportation has been entered. (Docs. 15, 16); See also 

Perez v. Wilson, No. 05-3542-AG (2nd Cir. April 5, 2007). Thus,

Petitioner faces no immediate threat of deportation, let alone

imminent danger. Because Petitioner has failed to establish the

prerequisites necessary to support his Motion for a Preliminary

Injunction, it is recommended that Petitioner’s Motion be DENIED.

The attached sheet contains important information regarding

objections to the Report and Recommendation. 

DONE this 10th day of August 2007.

 /S/ SONJA F. BIVINS 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:06-cv-00688-KD-B Document 24 Filed 08/13/07 Page 3 of 5
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)(c); 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

Case 2:06-cv-00688-KD-B Document 24 Filed 08/13/07 Page 4 of 5
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 24 Filed 08/13/07 Page 5 of 5