Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01110/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01110-7/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODOLFO POBLADOR AGNER, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

HON. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, )

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:06-CV-01110 OWW LJO HC

ORDER RE FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION

[Doc. #22]

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT

OF HABEAS CORPUS

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT

TO ENTER JUDGMENT

Petitioner is a detainee of the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (“ICE”) proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 2241. 

On October 19, 2006, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation that

recommended the petition be TRANSFERRED to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pursuant to 8

U.S.C. § 1252. The Findings and Recommendation was served on all parties and contained notice

that any objections were to be filed within ten (10) days of the date of service of the order. 

On November 2, 2006, Respondent filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

Respondent does not dispute the District Court is without jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

However, Respondent argues the petition should be dismissed rather than transferred, because the

Case 1:06-cv-01110-OWW-LJO Document 25 Filed 11/09/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California cd 2

petition was filed after the “REAL ID Act of 2005” was enacted. Respondent’s arguments are

persuasive. Petitioner filed his petition after the Act was enacted. Therefore, this Court is without

jurisdiction to entertain it. The only means for review of the order for removal is a petition for

review in the Ninth Circuit. The instant petition must be dismissed. See Puri v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d

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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de

novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file and having considered the

objections, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation is correct

in part. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation issued October 19, 2006, is ADOPTED IN PART;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DISMISSED; and

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter judgment for Respondent and against

Petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01110-OWW-LJO Document 25 Filed 11/09/06 Page 2 of 2