Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01022/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-01022-0/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 (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

TERMPSREF

WO JKM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Juan Jose Maravilla-Alvarez, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Alberto R. Gonzales, 

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

ORDER

Petitioner Juan Jose Maravilla-Alvarez (A92-442-579), who is confined in the

Immigration Service Processing Center in Florence, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for

Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The five dollar filing fee has been

paid. An answer to the Petition will be required.

A. Petition

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Mexico. Petitioner became a lawful permanent

resident of the United States in 1990. An immigration judge issued an order for Petitioner’s

removal from the United States on September 15, 2004. Petitioner’s appeal to the Board of

Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) was dismissed on February 22, 2005. Petitioner’s direct

appeal from the decision of the BIA is currently pending before the United States Court of

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. See Maravilla-Alvarez v. Gonzales, No. 05-71126 (9th Cir.

pet. for review filed Mar. 2, 2005). Petitioner argues that his detention for almost two years

while his removal proceedings have been pending is unlawful. See Tijani v. Willis, 430 F.3d

Case 2:06-cv-01022-SMM Document 4 Filed 05/24/06 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

1

 The REAL ID Act of 2005 does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction because the

Act was “not intended to ‘preclude habeas review over challenges to detention that are

independent of challenges to removal orders.’” Hernandez v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 42, 42-43

(1st Cir. 2005) (quoting H.R. Cong. Rep. No. 109-72, at 2873 (2005)); See also Nadarajah

v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2006) (“By its terms, the jurisdiction-stripping

provision [of the REAL ID Act] does not apply to federal habeas corpus petitions that do not

involve final orders of removal.”).

TERMPSREF - 2 -

1241, 1242 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[I]t is constitutionally doubtful that Congress may authorize

imprisonment of this duration [over two years and eight months] for lawfully admitted

resident aliens who are subject to removal. . . . To avoid deciding the constitutional issue, we

interpret the authority conferred by § 1226(c) as applying to expedited removal of criminal

aliens.”). An answer is required.1

B. Warnings

1. Address Changes

Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address within ten (10) days of

the date his move is effective. LRCIV 83.3(d). Petitioner must not include a request for any

other relief in his notice of change of address.

2. Copies

Petitioner must serve Respondent, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a

copy of every document that he files. FED.R.CIV.P. 5(a). Each filing must be accompanied

by a certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. FED. R. CIV. P. 5(d). Petitioner

also must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCIV 5.4. The

Court may strike any filing that fails to comply with these requirements.

3. Possible dismissal

Petitioner is warned that if he fails to timely comply with every provision of this

Order, including these warnings, this action will be dismissed without further notice. See

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss action

for failure to comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED:

Case 2:06-cv-01022-SMM Document 4 Filed 05/24/06 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

(1) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Summons, Petition and this Order

upon the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona by certified mail addressed to the

civil process clerk at the office of the United States Attorney pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(A) of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court also must send by certified mail

a copy of the Summons, Petition and this Order to the United States Attorney General

pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(B) and to Respondent pursuant to Rule 4(i)(2)(A).

(2) Respondent must answer the Petition within twenty (20) days of the date of

service. Respondent must not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without first

showing cause as to why an answer is inadequate.

(3) Petitioner may file a reply within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the

answer.

(4) The matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Charles R. Pyle pursuant to Rules 72.1

and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report and

recommendation.

DATED this 22nd day of May, 2006.

Case 2:06-cv-01022-SMM Document 4 Filed 05/24/06 Page 3 of 3