Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-02975/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-02975-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

---

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 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Kole Akinola, 

Movant, 

v. 

Kris Kline, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-17-02975-PHX-DJH (JZB)

REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION 

 TO THE HONORABLE DIANE J. HUMETEWA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT 

JUDGE: 

 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss and/or to Transfer 

Venue to the District of New Jersey. (Doc. 13.) 

 On August 31, 2017, Movant Kole Akinola, who was then confined in 

CoreCivic’s Florence Correctional Center in Florence, Arizona, but is now confined in 

the Essex County Correctional Facility in Newark, New Jersey, filed a pro se Petition for 

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) On October 3, 2017, the 

government filed a Motion to Dismiss and/or to Transfer Venue to the District of New 

Jersey. (Doc. 13.) The Motion is fully briefed. (Docs. 13, 16, 17, 181

.) 

 

1

 On December 6, 2017, Movant filed a Request that the Court consider his Sur- Reply. (Doc. 18.) Movant’s two-page Sur-Reply does little more than highlight the arguments already made in Movant’s Petition and Response to the Motion to Dismiss. To 

the extent the Court considers those arguments, Movant’s Request that the Court consider his Sur-Reply is granted. 

Case 2:17-cv-02975-DJH Document 19 Filed 01/04/18 Page 1 of 7
- 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 

I. Summary of Conclusion. 

Movant asserts that he has been held longer than is reasonable awaiting removal, 

and argues that he is entitled to release from custody. The government has filed a Motion 

to Dismiss arguing that Movant’s Petition is duplicative of another similar filing he has 

made in the District of New Jersey. In his Response to the government’s Motion to 

Dismiss, Movant argues that his Petition in this Court varies from his New Jersey petition 

because the Ninth Circuit has granted a stay of his removal, and thus this Petition is 

subject to different law and results. Because the Ninth Circuit has vacated its stay of 

Movant’s removal, Movant’s arguments relying on that stay are moot and the remaining 

claims in his Petition are duplicative. Accordingly, the Court will recommend the 

government’s Motion to Dismiss be granted. 

II. Procedural History.

 Movant is a native and citizen of Nigeria who entered the United States at an 

unknown place on an unknown date. (Doc. 13-1 at 1, Ex. 1, ¶ 5.) On April 13, 2000, 

Movant was convicted in the New Jersey Superior Court at Essex County of Robbery and 

Possession with Intent to Distribute a Controlled Dangerous Substance within 1000 feet 

of a School. (Id., ¶ 6.) Movant was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment. (Id.) 

 On May 20, 2009, an immigration judge issued a removal order but granted 

Movant’s application for protection under the Convention Against Torture. (Id., ¶ 8.) On 

July 12, 2010, a judge ordered Movant to be removed from the United States. (Id., ¶ 10.) 

On April 27, 2011, Movant was arrested by the U.S. Marshals Service on federal criminal 

charges, and ordered detained pending trial. (Id., ¶11.) On May 23, 2012, Movant’s 

removal order became administratively final. (Id., ¶ 10.) On April 5, 2013, the Third 

Circuit Court of Appeals denied Movant’s Petition for Review (“PFR”). (Id., ¶ 12.) 

 Movant was detained in criminal custody by the U.S. Marshals Service until 

January 25, 2017, at which time he was transferred back into ICE custody in New Jersey. 

(Id., ¶ 13.) On May 18, 2017, Movant filed a habeas petition in the District of New Jersey 

seeking his immediate release and injunctive relief. (See Doc. 13-1 at 7-39, Ex. 2; see 

Case 2:17-cv-02975-DJH Document 19 Filed 01/04/18 Page 2 of 7
- 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 

aslo Akinola v. Green, CV-17-3542, Doc. 1 (D. N.J. May 18, 2017)2.) On August 16, 

2017, the Board of Immigration Appeals denied Movant’s motion for a stay of removal 

because “there is little likelihood that [his] motion [to reopen proceedings] will be 

granted.” (See Doc. 13-1 at 76, Ex. 3.) On August 19, 2017 Movant arrived in Arizona on 

August 19, 2017 for staging of his removal. (Id. at 5, Ex. 1, ¶ 23.) On August 25, 2017, 

Movant filed a PFR and motion for stay of removal in both the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. (Id. at 5-6, Ex. 1, ¶¶ 24-25.) On 

August 28, 2017, the Third Circuit denied Movant’s Motion for Stay of Removal, but 

Movant’s Ninth Circuit filing triggered an automatic temporary stay of removal pursuant 

to G.O. 6.4(c)(1). Akinola, No. 17-72409, ECF No. 1. 

 On August 29, 2017, the government of Nigeria issued travel documents for 

Movant, so that he could depart on a charter flight to Nigeria (doc. 13-1 at 5-6, Ex. 1, ¶¶ 

20, 21, 26), but Movant was unable to be removed because his PFR and motion to stay 

filed with the Ninth Circuit remained pending decision. On August 30, 2017, Movant was 

moved from the CCA, Florence Correctional Facility in Florence, Arizona to Florence 

SPC in Florence, Arizona. (Id. at 7, Ex. 1, ¶ 27.) On August 31, 2017, Movant was 

moved from Florence SPC in Florence, Arizona to the Alexandria Staging Facility in 

Alexandria, Louisiana. (Id.) That same day, Movant filed this action by submitting a 

Movant for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and Motion for Injunctive Relief in the District of 

Arizona. (Doc. 1.) 

 On September 5, 2017, Movant was moved from the Alexandria Staging Facility 

in Alexandria, Louisiana to the Essex County Correctional Facility in Newark, New 

Jersey, where he is currently detained. On September 13, 2017, Movant filed an 

Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief and Order to Show Cause in the District of New 

Jersey. (N.J. Doc. 8.) On October 11, 2017, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed 

Movant’s PFR for lack of jurisdiction and vacated the temporary stay of removal. (See 

 

2

 Any necessary citation to the Docket in Movant’s District of New Jersey Action will be styled as “N.J. Doc.” 

Case 2:17-cv-02975-DJH Document 19 Filed 01/04/18 Page 3 of 7
- 4 - 

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 

Doc. 17-1 at 15, Ex. 2.) 

 On November 16, 2017, the District Court for the District of New Jersey denied 

Movant’s original habeas petition (N.J. Doc. 1) without prejudice and his motion for 

injunctive relief (N.J. Doc. 8). (N.J. Doc. 17.) In its Order, the New Jersey District Court 

found as follows: 

In this matter, Petitioner has been held pursuant to § 123l(a) for over nine months. During that time, the Government has sought, and obtained, at least one travel document for Petitioner from the Nigerian Consulate notwithstanding the Government’s appeal of the dismissal of Petitioner’s 

criminal charges and Petitioner’s attempts to reopen his order of removal. Indeed, were it not for Petitioner’s eleventh hour motion for a stay with the Ninth Circuit, which provided him with a temporary and now vacated stay of removal, Petitioner would have been removed in August. Petitioner has presented no evidence sufficient to suggest to this Court that his removal is 

not likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Indeed, in his multiple motions seeking emergency relief in this matter, Petitioner has essentially argued himself that his removal, absent court action, is very likely to occur in the foreseeable future. As petitioner has failed to provide the Court with good reason to believe that his removal is unlikely, and because the Government has in any event clearly shown that Petitioner’s removal is quite likely in the reasonably foreseeable future now that his temporary stay of removal has been vacated, Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief 

(N.J. Doc. 17 at 9-10; see also Doc. 17-1 at 11-12.) 

III. Motions. 

 A. Movant’s Claims. 

 In his Arizona Petition, Movant argues that he is entitled to “a writ of habeas 

corpus to review the lawfulness of his detention by the United States Department of 

Homeland Security[], Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement[] ([] 

collectively, ‘DHS-ICE’)” and “declaratory and injunctive relief as well as a preliminary 

injunction, pendent lite, for emergency relief in the form [of] immediate of release from 

custody or the immediate setting of bail, and to prevent DHS-ICE from taking action to 

circumvent or evade the applicability of relief to [Movant].” (Doc. 1 at 1.) Movant 

alleges that he is entitled to such relief because DHS-ICE refuses “to provide a hearing 

before a neutral judge” or “to establish a reasonable bond amount[,]” and that such 

refusals are arbitrary and capricious. (Id. at 7, ¶24.) 

B. Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Venue. 

Case 2:17-cv-02975-DJH Document 19 Filed 01/04/18 Page 4 of 7
- 5 - 

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 

On October 3, 2017, the government filed a Motion seeking dismissal of Movant’s 

Arizona Petition on the grounds that “[Movant] has a duplicative petition currently 

pending in the District of New Jersey.” (Doc. 13 at 1.) In the alternative, the government 

asks the Court to grant its Motion to Transfer Venue of this action to the District of New 

Jersey. (Id.) On November 9, 2017, Movant filed a Response, arguing that the 

government’s Motions should be denied because “the [g]overnment does not deny that 

[Movant] was detained within this District at the time said Petition was filed, and the 

Arizona Petition (1) complains of detention under a different statute from that which was 

the subject of his New Jersey petition and (2) relies on precedential authority that is 

binding within this District, but not binding in New Jersey.” (Doc. 16.) On November 21, 

2017, the government filed a Reply. (Doc. 17.) 

IV. Analysis. 

 In its Motion, the government argues that Movant’s Arizona Petition should be 

dismissed because it is duplicative of his New Jersey petition. (Doc. 13.) “A suit is 

duplicative if the claims, parties, and available relief do not significantly differ between 

the two actions.” iStar RC Paradise Valley LLC v. Five Star Dev., No. CV-10-2191-

PHX-GMS, 2011 WL 4852293, at *8 (D. Ariz. Oct. 13, 2011) (quoting Barapind v. 

Reno, 72 F. Supp. 2d 1132, 1145 (E.D. Cal.1999) (internal citation omitted)). Where one 

suit is duplicative of another, “the court has discretion to abate or dismiss the second 

action.” Id.; see also Alltrade, Inc. v. Uniweld Products, Inc., 946 F.2d 622, 625 (9th 

Cir.1991) (citing Pacesetter Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., 678 F.2d 93, 95 (9th 

Cir.1982) (holding that a court may stay or dismiss an action “when a complaint 

involving the same parties and issues has already been filed in another district”)). 

 In his New Jersey petition, Movant sought habeas relief on the grounds that “his 

detention has become overlong and that he is therefore entitled to release from 

immigration detention.” K.A. v. Green, No. CV 17-3542 (JLL), 2017 WL 5513685, at *4 

(D.N.J. Nov. 16, 2017). In his Arizona Petition, Movant seeks habeas relief on the 

grounds that “a stay of removal has been issued in [Movant]’s case,” and “his prolonged 

Case 2:17-cv-02975-DJH Document 19 Filed 01/04/18 Page 5 of 7
- 6 - 

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 

detention in excess of six months is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and he is entitled by 

the law of this Circuit to an immediate bond determination.” (Doc. 1 at 7, ¶ 27.) As noted 

above, the Ninth Circuit vacated the temporary stay of removal on October 11, 2017 

when it found that it lack jurisdiction over the Petition. (Doc. 17-1 at 15.) Accordingly, 

Movant’s challenges to his detention under § 1226(a) are moot. What remains of 

Movant’s claims is substantively identical to those allegations proffered in his New 

Jersey petition – i.e. that Movant’s detention has been overlong such that he is now 

entitled to release. 

 Because Movant’s habeas filing here is duplicative of his New Jersey habeas 

filing, the government’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted. Accordingly, 

 IT IS RECOMMENDED that the government’s Motion to Dismiss the Movant’s 

Petition (Doc. 13) be GRANTED. 

 IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that a Certificate of Appealability be 

DENIED because Defendant has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right. 

 This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1) should 

not be filed until entry of the District Court’s judgment. The parties shall have 14 days 

from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific 

written objections with the Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6, 72. 

Thereafter, the parties have 14 days within which to file a response to the objections. 

 Failure to file timely objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 

Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and Recommendation by the 

District Court without further review. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 

1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure to file timely objections to any factual determinations of the 

Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party’s right to appellate review of the 

/// 

/// 

Case 2:17-cv-02975-DJH Document 19 Filed 01/04/18 Page 6 of 7
- 7 - 

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 

findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the Magistrate Judge’s 

recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

 Dated this 4th day of January, 2018. 

Honorable John Z. Boyle 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 2:17-cv-02975-DJH Document 19 Filed 01/04/18 Page 7 of 7