Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01973/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01973-0/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

SALVADOR PENA LOPEZ,

Petitioner,

CASE NO. 12CV1973 WQH (BGS)

ORDER

vs.

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR.,

Respondent.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) filed

by Petitioner Salvador Pena Lopez pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1).

BACKGROUND

On July 23, 2012, Petitioner Salvador Pena Lopez, proceeding pro se, filed the Petition

but failed to pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No.

1). On August 20, 2012, Petitioner filed the required $5.00 filing fee. (ECF No. 2). In the

Petition, Petitioner alleges that he is currently in the custody of the Department of Homeland

Security and is being detained at the San Diego Correctional Facility. (ECF No. 1 at 2).

Petitioner alleges that on December 7, 2011, the United States Immigration Court in Denver,

Colorado initiated removal proceedings pursuant to Section 212(a) of the Immigration

Nationality Act. Id. Petitioner challenges his custody on the grounds that his “I130 petition

has been approved.” Id. at 2-3.

On October 23, 2012, this Court issued an Order requiring Respondent to show cause

- 1 - 12cv1973 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:12-cv-01973-WQH-BGS Document 6 Filed 11/19/12 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

why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written return with the Court. (ECF No. 3).

On October 31, 2012, Respondent filed a written return. (ECF No. 4). Respondent contends:

“Petitioner is directly challenging his removal order and the district court does not have

jurisdiction over such claims.” Id. at 3. Respondent submits a copy of an executed warrant of

removal, dated October 22, 2012, documenting Petitioner’s removal to Mexico. (ECF No. 4-1

at 43-44).

RULING OF THE COURT

Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1252, habeas jurisdiction over removal orders is vested

solely with the courts of appeal. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (“Notwithstanding any other

provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of Title 28, ... a petition

for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section shall be

the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal.”). The Court

concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to consider the Petition. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1)

filed by Petitioner is DENIED.

DATED: November 19, 2012

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv1973 WQH (BGS)

Case 3:12-cv-01973-WQH-BGS Document 6 Filed 11/19/12 Page 2 of 2