Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00041/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00041-3/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

KATALIN HORVATH, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

INS, )

)

)

Respondent. )

 )

1:05-cv-00041-REC-TAG-HC

ORDER FOR PARTIES TO FILE BRIEFS

ADDRESSING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE

REAL ID ACT OF 2005

Petitioner, currently in the custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (“ICE”) and proceeding pro se, has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). 

On June 21, 2005, Respondent filed with the Court a document entitled “Respondents’

Notice of Applicability of Public Law 109-13 [The Real ID Act of 2005]” (“the Notice”),

pointing out that the Real ID Act of 2005, enacted on May 11, 2005, divests the United States

District Court of jurisdiction to hear claims involving a challenge to a final administrative order

of removal, deportation, or exclusion. (Doc. 32, Attachment). The Notice contends that

Petitioner is challenging “only the final administrative order of removal,” and therefore this

Court “must transfer this case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.” (Id. at p. 2). 

The Court is aware of the passage of Public Law 109-13 and of the provisions contained

therein. In response to the Real ID Act of 2005, on June 2, 2005, the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a “Special Notice” to the district courts in the Ninth Circuit

Case 1:05-cv-00041-REC-TAG Document 33 Filed 06/27/05 Page 1 of 3
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

addressing the procedures for determining whether to transfer cases to the Ninth Circuit pursuant

to the Real ID Act of 2005. In that Special Notice, the Ninth Circuit suggests that, if, after being

given the opportunity, the parties are unwilling to stipulate to a transfer, the district court should

allow the parties the opportunity to brief the propriety of such a transfer.

 Respondent’s Notice indicates that Respondent believes that the provisions of the Real

ID Act of 2005 are applicable to the instant habeas corpus proceeding. However, the need for

such a transfer is not self-evident to the Court at this juncture, and therefore briefing by the

parties is required. The plain language of the Real ID Act of 2005 limits the jurisdiction of the

district court only in cases involving challenges to a final order of removal, deportation, or

exclusion. It does not purport to divest the district court of jurisdiction in habeas cases that do

not challenge the final order of removal, as, for example, when a petitioner only challenges the

legality of his or her detention following issuance of a final order of removal. 

The instant petition does not appear on its face to directly challenge the final order of

removal to which Petitioner is currently subject. The claim or claims in the petition are

contained in an attachment that consists of a lengthy chronology and arguments by Petitioner. In

that attachment, Petitioner argues that her continued detention is improper. (Doc. 1, attach., pp.

5-6).

Subsequently, Petitioner filed a series of motions in which she has maintained that ICE

has pressured her to sign removal documents to Hungary, despite her insistence that she cannot

speak Hungarian and cannot read the documents she is being asked to sign. (E.g., Docs. 5, 9,

21). Petitioner steadfastly maintains that she is from Russian, not Hungary. (Doc. 17). 

From the foregoing, it is not clear to the Court that Petitioner is challenging a final order

of removal, deportation, or exclusion. It does appear that Petitioner’s allegations that the fact and

circumstances of her present detention are unlawful and unreasonable are based on circumstances

subsequent to and distinct from the final order of removal. 

However, in order for the Court to make an informed decision regarding whether the

instant petition falls within the ambit of the Real ID Act of 2005, and since it does not appear that

///

Case 1:05-cv-00041-REC-TAG Document 33 Filed 06/27/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

the parties are prepared to stipulate to a transfer to the Ninth Circuit, the Court will order the

parties to file briefs explaining their respective positions on the issue.

ORDER

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent must within fifteen (15) days 

from the date of service of this order, file a brief addressing whether and in what respects the

Real ID Act of 2005 is applicable to the instant petition. Petitioner will have ten (10) days after

the date of service of Respondent’s brief to file a brief in opposition to Respondent, should

Petitioner disagree with Respondent’s position. The Court will make its decision regarding

transfer to the Ninth Circuit based upon the parties’ briefs.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 24, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00041-REC-TAG Document 33 Filed 06/27/05 Page 3 of 3