Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01175/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01175-0/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

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO NAIL,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-07-1175 FCD GGH P

vs.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner has not filed an application to proceed in forma

pauperis or paid the filing fee ($5). Accordingly, petitioner is granted thirty days to either pay the

filing fee or file an in forma pauperis application.

In his application, petitioner challenges deportation proceedings which are

apparently not yet final. Petitioner is incarcerated at the California Correctional Institution in

Tehachapi, California.

The REAL ID Act provides that habeas petitions challenging final orders of

removal filed after the May 11, 2005 effective date of the act should be dismissed outright by the

district court for lack of jurisdiction rather than transferred to the Ninth Circuit. Puri v.

Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2006). In Puri, the Ninth Circuit also considered

Case 2:07-cv-01175-FCD-GGH Document 4 Filed 08/08/07 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

2

whether, in lieu of outright dismissal, transfer of the case directly from the district court to the

Ninth Circuit “in the interest of justice” under 28 U.S.C. § 1631 would have been appropriate. 

Id., at 1042-1043.

Section 1631 provides that, in a civil action, if there is a want of jurisdiction, “the

court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such action or appeal to any

other such court in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time

it was filed.” [Footnote omitted] 28 U.S.C. § 1631. An immigration case is

“transferable” when the following three conditions are met: 1) the transferee court

would have been able to exercise its jurisdiction on the date the action was

misfiled; 2) the transferor court lacks jurisdiction; and 3) the transfer serves the

interest of justice.

Id., at 1042-1043. 

In the instant case, the Ninth Circuit would not have been able to exercise

jurisdiction on the date this action was misfiled in this court if petitioner’s order of removal was

not final. 

Accordingly, petitioner is ordered to show cause why this action should not be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. If petitioner argues that the court has jurisdiction, he should

file a copy of the final removal order with his further briefing.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days of the date of this order, petitioner shall either pay the filing

fee ($5) or file an application to proceed in forma pauperis;

2. Within thirty days of the date of this order, petitioner shall show cause why this

action should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DATED: 8/8/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

nail175.ord

Case 2:07-cv-01175-FCD-GGH Document 4 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 2