Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00510/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00510-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SALVADOR BAUTISTA-MANZO, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

Respondent. )

 )

CASE NO. 1: 05-cv-00510 OWW TAG HC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE

TRANSFERRED TO THE COURT OF

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PURSUANT TO THE REAL I.D. ACT OF 2005

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 April 18, 2005, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus (the

“Petition”). (Doc. 1). In the Petition, Petitioner indicates that he is presently confined for a

conviction for a violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326 (deported alien found in the U.S., second offense). 

(Doc. 1, p. 6). Petitioner pleaded guilty to this charge and was sentenced to a prison term of 77

months. (Id.). In the Petition, Petitioner alleges that the original removal proceedings in

February 1989 and May 9, 1995, violated his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights because he

was never informed of his rights granted him under the Immigration and Nationality Act, sect

212(c), to appeal for a waiver of deportation with the Attorney General. (Doc. 1, p. 6). 

Petitioner also alleges that the immigration judge failed to advise him of various other critical

matters, including his right to appeal to a higher court. (Id. at p. 7). Although Petitioner

Case 1:05-cv-00510-OWW -TAG Document 5 Filed 12/12/05 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

purports to challenge his underlying federal conviction, he acknowledges in the Petition that the

gravamen of his Petition is a collateral attack on the aforementioned removal proceedings. (Id. at

p. 9). 

DISCUSSION

On May 11, 2005, Public Law 109-13 was enacted. Section 106 of that law (the Real ID

Act of 2005, hereinafter “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 a series of errors in

the proceedings culminating in the order of removal used as a predicate for Petitioner’s

conviction. Hence, it appears to the Court that the Petition contains claims challenging a “final

order or removal, deportation, or exclusion,” which would, pursuant to RIDA, deprive this Court

of jurisdiction to proceed. Should that be the case, the Court would recommend to the District

Judge that the case be transferred to the venue specified in Section 106, i.e., the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the federal appeals court for the district in which

Petitioner’s final order of removal was issued.

According to a Special Notice dated October 3, 2005, from the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals, regarding the protocol for district courts who are dealing with habeas corpus cases that

may fall within the ambit of RIDA, the Ninth Circuit suggests that initially the district court

“allow the parties to stipulate to, or brief the propriety of, transfer.” Therefore, the Court will

request that, within thirty (30) days of the date of service of this order to show cause, the parties

either (1) stipulate to a transfer of jurisdiction to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, or, in 

Case 1:05-cv-00510-OWW -TAG Document 5 Filed 12/12/05 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

lieu of such a stipulation, (2) that the parties submit briefs regarding their respective legal

positions as to such a transfer.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The parties are GRANTED THIRTY (30) days from the date of service of this

Order, to SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be transferred to the United

States Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. The parties may show cause either

through the submission of a stipulation for transfer to the Ninth Circuit, or by

submission of a document detailing that party’s legal position vis-a-vis such a

proposed transfer. 

Petitioner is forewarned that his failure to comply with this order will result in a

Recommendation that the Petition be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00510-OWW -TAG Document 5 Filed 12/12/05 Page 3 of 3