Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00043/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00043-0/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

 Paragraph 7 of the Petition alleges Petitioner was born in Nigeria and ordered removed/deported/excluded to the “United

States.” (Doc. 1, p. 3). Paragraph 8 alleges the country to which Petitioner was ordered removed/deported/excluded, i.e., the United

States, “has not allowed repatriation from the United States for many years.” It appears Petitioner erroneously named the United States

in paragraph 7, rather than Nigeria. The Court construes paragraph 7 to mean “Nigeria” as the country to which Petitioner was ordered

removed/deported/excluded, at this stage of the proceedings, unless advised otherwise in writing by the parties. 

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 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 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE

PETITION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

SERVE DOCUMENTS ON RESPONDENT 

Petitioner is detained by the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

(“BICE”) and is proceeding with a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

(Doc. 1). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. 

The Petition alleges that Petitioner’s detention pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2) is indefinite

and violates his substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. (Doc. 1,

p. 4). The Petition also asserts that Petitioner’s detention is unreasonable and violates Respondents’

statutory authority because the country to which Petitioner was ordered removed/deported/excluded

does not have a repatriation agreement with the United States and has not allowed repatriation from

the United States for many years, and there is no reason to believe that repatriation will be permitted

in this instance.1 (Doc. 1, p. 4). 

Case 1:05-cv-00043-OWW -TAG Document 9 Filed 05/03/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 2

Petitioner may be entitled to relief if the claimed violations are proved. Accordingly, 

Respondent IS ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted. Rule 4,

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see Rule 1(b), Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases;

Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(2). Respondent SHALL INCLUDE a copy of Petitioner’s alien file and any and

all other documentation relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition. Rule 5 of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the event Petitioner is released from BICE custody during

the pendency of the Petition, the parties shall notify the Court by filing a motion to dismiss the

Petition or other proper pleading. Should the parties fail to notify the Court that Petitioner has been

released, the parties may be subject to sanctions pursuant to the Court’s inherent power to issue

sanctions in appropriate cases. See Local Rule 11-110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 

1. Respondent is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus should not be granted. The Return to the Order to Show Cause is due within

FORTY-FIVE (45) days of the date of service of this order. Petitioner may file a

Traverse to the Return within TEN (10) days of the date the Return to the Order to

Show Cause is filed with the Court.

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to SERVE a copy of the Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus on the United States Attorney. (Court Doc. 1).

The Court has determined that this matter is suitable for decision without oral argument

pursuant to Local Rule 78-230(h). As such, the matter will be taken under submission following the 

filing of Petitioner’s Traverse or the expiration of the time for filing the Traverse. All other briefing

in this action is suspended. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2005 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00043-OWW -TAG Document 9 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 2