Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03534/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03534-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YUTTASAK SIMMA,

Petitioner,

 v.

ALBERTO GONZALEZ, et al.,

Respondents /

No. C 07-3534 MMC

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Before the Court is Yuttasak Simma’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, filed July 6, 2007.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the petition, and are assumed true.

On November 9, 2006, petitioner was convicted of the offense of possession of a

controlled substance for sale, in violation of § 11378 of the California Health and Safety

Code. On March 28, 2007, shortly before petitioner was scheduled to be released from

state custody, he was served with a Notice to Appear, in which respondents alleged he was

removable pursuant to § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, on the

ground he was an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. Petitioner was thereafter

detained by respondents, and, at the present time, remains detained.

Petitioner alleges the detention is wrongful because he is not an alien, but, rather, he

Case 3:07-cv-03534-MMC Document 10 Filed 07/24/07 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

is a citizen. Petitioner asserts that he has presented to respondents documentary evidence

of his citizenship, and that respondents refusal to release him from detention is wrongful.

DISCUSSION

A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus where the

petitioner alleges he “is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the

United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A district court shall “award the writ or issue

an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless

it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the

petition are “vague or conclusory,” “palpably incredible,” or “patently frivolous or false.” See

Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F. 2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) (quoting Blackledge v. Allison,

431 U.S. 63, 75-76 (1977)).

Here, petitioner alleges that, in light of the evidence of citizenship he has offered to

respondents, he has made a “substantial claim of citizenship.” (See Petition ¶ 38.) 

Petitioner asserts respondents lack any statutory authority to detain a person who has

made such a showing, and that the continued detention violates his due process rights. 

Petitioner’s claims are not vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or

false. Accordingly, summary dismissal of the petition is not proper and respondents will be

directed to show cause why the petition should not be granted.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall serve by certified mail a copy of this order, the

petition and its attachments upon respondents and respondents’ attorney, the United

States Attorney.

2. Respondents shall file, within 21 days of the date of the service of this order, an

answer showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue on the basis of

petitioner's claims; respondents shall file with the answer a copy of all portions of the

administrative record relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

Case 3:07-cv-03534-MMC Document 10 Filed 07/24/07 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

3. Petitioner may file a traverse within 14 days of the filing of respondents’ answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03534-MMC Document 10 Filed 07/24/07 Page 3 of 3