Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01022/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01022-2/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 (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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Juan Jose Maravilla-Alvarez,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Alberto G. Gonzales,

Respondent. _________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-1022-PHX-SMM (CRP) 

ORDER

On November 2, 2006, Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle filed a Report and

Recommendation advising this Court that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”) (Dkt. 1) is denied on the grounds that 

(i) Petitioner’s detention is authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c); (ii) 8 U.S.C. § 1231 does not yet

apply; (iii) The holding in Tijani v. Willis, 430 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2005) is not controlling in

this case; and (iv) The indefinite duration of a once lawfully admitted alien who was refused

admission upon his return to the United States does not violate the Constitution (Shaughnessy

v. United States ex.rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953)). See Dkt. 16. Petitioner has filed

Objections to Judge Pyle’s Report and Recommendation. (Dkt. 22) After considering Judge

Pyle’s Report and Recommendation and Petitioner’s Objections thereto, the Court now issues

the following ruling. 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

When reviewing a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, this Court “may

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the

Case 2:06-cv-01022-SMM Document 23 Filed 03/23/07 Page 1 of 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

1 The “due process” argument Petitioner raises at page 1, line 17, through page 2, line 3,was

previously raised in his Petition at page 8. See Dkt. 1 at 8; Dkt. 22 at 1:17-2:3. Petitioner’s objection

to Judge Pyle’s determination that Tijani v. Wills, 430 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2005), is not controlling

was previously raised in his replies to Respondent’s oppositions. See Dkt. 10 at 1; Dkt. 12 at 1-2; Dkt.

22 at 3-4. Having reviewed each of these contentions and Magistrate Pyle’s resolution of these issues

de novo, the Court agrees with Judge Pyle. See Dkt. 16 at page 4, line 11, through page 6, line 26. 

- 2 -

magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th

Cir. 1991). The Court must review the legal analysis in the Report and Recommendation de

novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). The Court must review the factual analysis in the Report

and Recommendation de novo for those facts to which Objections are filed and for clear error

for those facts to which no Objections are filed. See id.; see also Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d

449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998) (failure to file objections relieves the district court of conducting de

novo review of the magistrate’s factual findings).

DISCUSSION

Petitioner has objected to the November 2, 2006 Report and Recommendation filed by

Judge Pyle. (Dkt. 22.) Having reviewed each of Petitioner’s filings and, thereafter, having

reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and the record de novo, the Court

finds that none of Petitioner’s Objections are meritorious. With one exception (addressed infra),

Petitioner raises the very same issues in his Objections as those raised initially in his Petition,

his Reply to Respondent’s Response in Opposition to his Petition, and his Reply to

Respondent’s Corrected Response in Opposition to his Petition. (Dkts. 1,10, 12.)1

 Thus, the

Court hereby incorporates and adopts Judge Pyle’s entire Report and Recommendation, with

the following additions:

A. Shaughnessy v. United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953), Applies Here

Petitioner challenges Magistrate Judge Pyle’s determination that “[t]he indefinite

duration of a once lawfully admitted alien who was refused admission upon his return to the

United States does not violate the Constitution.” See Dkt. 22 at 2, line 4, through page 3, line

13. The Court rejects this argument.

Case 2:06-cv-01022-SMM Document 23 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 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

2 For this reason, the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Xi v. I.N.S., 298 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2002), is

not applicable here. See id. at 834 (section 1231, as applied to inadmissible and deportable aliens, does

not permit indefinite post-removal detention). 

- 3 -

In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the Supreme Court accepted the

Government’s argument that, “from a constitutional perspective, alien status itself can justify

indefinite detention.” Id. at 693 (“It is well established that certain constitutional protections

available to persons inside the United States are unavailable to aliens outside of our geographic

borders.”). More importantly, in Zadvydas, the Supreme Court distinguished Shaughnessy v.

United States ex rel. Mezei, 345 U.S. 206 (1953) (Mezei), because “the alien’s extended

departure from the United States required him to seek entry into” the United States again,

whereas the aliens at issue Zadvydas were permanent residents who had not left the country.

Id. at 692-94. Thus, this Court finds that the holding in Mezei – the indefinite detention of a

once lawfully admitted alien who was refused admission upon his return to the United States

does not violate the Constitution – requires the Petition at issue here be denied.

B. Section 1231 Does Not Apply

It is worth noting that, on March 15, 2007, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a

memorandum disposition denying, in part, and dismissing, in part, Petitioner’s Petition for

Review. See 2007 WL 796049 (9th Cir. March 15, 2007). Although Section 1231 begins to

apply when the removal order becomes final (8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(ii)), the Ninth Circuit

has not yet issued its mandate. Thus, section 1231 does not yet apply.2

 CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Court adopts and incorporates the Report and

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle, with the above additions. (Dkt. 16.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED. (Dkt. 1.) The Clerk of Court shall terminate this

action accordingly.

Case 2:06-cv-01022-SMM Document 23 Filed 03/23/07 Page 3 of 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

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall send a copy of this Order

to all parties as well as to Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle.

DATED this 21st day of March, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-01022-SMM Document 23 Filed 03/23/07 Page 4 of 4