Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01272/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01272-1/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

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENIDITO LOTAWA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ, et al., )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:06-CV-01272-AWI-TAG HC

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO

DISMISS PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS

CORPUS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

(Docs. 1, 8)

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has paid the filing fee.

BACKGROUND

On September 15, 2006, petitioner filed the instant petition as well as an “Emergency

Motion For Stay Of Final Order Of Removal Or Deportation Pending Judicial Review.” (Docs.

1, 2). In the petition, petitioner indicates that he is presently in the custody of the Bureau of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and being detained at Lerdo Jail in Bakersfield,

California. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Petitioner also alleges that he is subject to a final order of removal,

that during the removal proceedings, he was denied federal due process under the Fifth

Amendment as well as the effective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment. (Doc. 1,

pp. 3-4). Petitioner seeks legal review of the final order of removal. (Doc. 1, p. 5). Finally,

petitioner alleges that a stay of the removal proceedings is required in order to prevent his

removal and the subsequent prejudice that would result. (Doc. 1, p. 7). 

On October 10, 2006, the court issued an order to show cause why the petition should not

be transferred to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, pursuant to the Real ID

Act of 2005 (“RIDA”), which divests the district court of jurisdiction to consider challenges to

Case 1:06-cv-01272-AWI-TAG Document 9 Filed 11/08/06 Page 1 of 4
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

final orders of removal. (Doc. 4). 

On October 24, 2006, petitioner filed a response to the order to show cause in an

“Emergency Motion to Withdraw Stay of Final Order of Removal.” (Doc. 7). In that motion,

petitioner seeks to withdraw his motion for a stay of the removal order and, at the same time, he

attempts to raise a claim of unlawful detention under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). 

On October 30, 2006, respondent filed a response to the order to show cause, contending

that under RIDA, the district court must dismiss the petition rather than simply transferring it to

the Ninth Circuit. (Doc. 8). Respondent also moves for dismissal of the petition because the

district court lacks jurisdiction to proceed under RIDA. (Id.). 

DISCUSSION

On May 11, 2005, Public Law 109-13 was enacted. Section 106 of that law (i.e.,

“RIDA”), is entitled “Judicial Review of Orders of Removal.” Section 106 amends 28 U.S.C.

§ 1252, providing in pertinent part as follows:

Notwithstanding any other provisions of law (statutory or nonstatutory), including section

2241 of title 28, United States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision...a petition for

review filed in 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 entered or issued

under any provision of this Act, except as provided in subsection (e)....”

(Emphasis supplied.)

The plain language of Section 106 thus divests the district court of jurisdiction in habeas

corpus cases involving challenges to a final order of removal, deportation, or exclusion, and

places exclusive jurisdiction for judicial review of such orders in the federal appeals court for the

district in which the removal order was issued. 

In this case, petitioner alleges generally violations of his constitutional rights during the

proceedings culminating in the final order of removal. Hence, it appears to the court that the

petition challenges a “final order or removal, deportation, or exclusion,” which would, pursuant

to RIDA, be outside of this Court’s jurisdiction. 

Although RIDA contained a provision for the transfer of pending habeas corpus cases to

the Ninth Circuit, any petitions filed on or after the May 11, 2005 effective date of RIDA should

be dismissed outright by the district court for want of jurisdiction. Puri v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d

Case 1:06-cv-01272-AWI-TAG Document 9 Filed 11/08/06 Page 2 of 4
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

Moreover, petitioner provides no information at all in the petition regarding the date of the final order of 1

removal, the date his detention by ICE commenced, his citizenship, the country to which he may be removed, or the

likelihood that ICE will be able to effect his removal within a reasonable time, all of which are factors to be

considered under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678. Accordingly, even were the court to construe petitioner’s

passing reference to Zadvydas as an implicit due process claim based on the length of his detention and the

likelihood of his being removed, the allegations in the petition would be insufficient to support such a request. 

3

1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2006); see Medellin-Reyes v. Gonzales, 435 F.3d 721, 723-24 (7th Cir.

2006) (“Collateral proceedings filed on or after May 11, [2005,] however, will be dismissed

outright; the window for belated judicial review has closed.”). 

Here, petitioner filed his petition on September 15, 2006, over sixteen months after the

effective date of RIDA. Hence, respondent is correct that the proper procedure is dismissal of the

petition for lack of jurisdiction. Puri, 464 F.3d at 1041. 

To the extent that petitioner’s response to the order to show cause raises the issue of

unlawful detention under Zadvydas, the court notes that this claim was not raised in petitioner’s

habeas corpus petition as a substantive grounds for relief. Instead, petitioner casually refers to

Zadvydas, in the conclusion and prayer for relief, as a basis for immediate release. Although the

court will liberally construe habeas claims, petitioner makes no substantive claim of unlawful

detention in the instant petition itself. To the contrary, the substantive claims in the petition are

exclusively directed at challenges to the final order of removal and the removal proceedings

themselves. Under these circumstances, even a liberal construction of the petition will not avail

petitioner. The court cannot liberally construe what is not there.1

RECOMMENDATION

For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge

RECOMMENDS that respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) be GRANTED and that the

instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

This Report and Recommendation is submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of

the Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. 

Within thirty (30) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with

the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Case 1:06-cv-01272-AWI-TAG Document 9 Filed 11/08/06 Page 3 of 4
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

4

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation.” The court will then review the Magistrate

Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 

Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 7, 2006 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:06-cv-01272-AWI-TAG Document 9 Filed 11/08/06 Page 4 of 4