Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00043/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00043-2/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

EDWARD SOFOWORA, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

v. )

)

)

JOHN ASHCROFT, et al., )

)

)

Respondents. )

 )

1:05-cv-00043-OWW-TAG-HC

ORDER RE “RESPONDENTS’ NOTICE OF

APPLICABILITY OF PUBLIC LAW 109-13

[THE REAL ID ACT OF 2005]” (Doc. 12)

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 May 24, 2005, Respondents 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. 12). 

Case 1:05-cv-00043-OWW -TAG Document 13 Filed 06/13/05 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

2

The Court is aware of the passage of the Real ID Act of 2005 and its provisions which

limit the jurisdiction of the District Court in cases involving challenges to a final order of

removal, deportation, or exclusion. The Real ID Act of 2005 does not purport to divest the

District Court of jurisdiction in habeas cases that do not challenge the final order of removal. In

this case, the habeas petition does not appear to challenge the final order of removal to which

Petitioner is currently subject. Rather, it alleges that Petitioner’s indefinite detention pursuant to

8 U.S.C. §1226(c) is in violation of both 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) and the Due Process Clause of

the Fifth Amendment. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Nor does the instant petition request relief from a final

order of removal; it merely seeks Petitioner’s release, under reasonable conditions of supervision,

pending the execution of a final order of removal. (Doc. 1, p. 5).

 If, however, as the Notice would suggest, Respondents believe that the provisions of the

Real ID Act of 2005 are applicable to this habeas corpus proceeding, Respondents may file a

motion, supported by legal arguments, requesting such judicial action or relief as Respondents 

believe is appropriate, given the specific allegations contained in the petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00043-OWW -TAG Document 13 Filed 06/13/05 Page 2 of 2