Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01004/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01004-0/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 

FILED 

NOV 28 2011 

CLERK U DISTRICT COURT 

g~UTHERN D RICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DEPUTY 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JESUS HERALDEZ-MARTINEZ, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

FERNANDO A. ARRIOLA, Warden, et aI., 

Respondents. 

CASE NO. 11-CV-I004 BEN (JMA) 

ORDER: 

(1) PARTIALLY TRANSFERRING 

CASE TO THE U.S. COURT OF 

APPEALS FOR THE NINTH 

CIRCUIT AS A PETITION FOR 

REVIEW 

(2) P ARTIALL Y DENYING 

PETITION 

Presently before the Court is Petitioner's Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241. To the extent that Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his detention and requests a 

declaratory judgment that he is a United States citizen, the Petition is DENIED. To the extent that 

Petitioner challenges his past removal orders, this action is TRANSFERRED to the Ninth Circuit. 

BACKGROUND 

Petitioner first came to the United States around 1977. (Return, Exh. B, at 34.) Petitioner's 

aliases include: Rafael Soto-Majorado, Estevan Herrera Holguin, Jesse Leon Martinez Gonzalez, Jesus 

Leon Gonzalez, and Alberto Martinez Herrera. (ld, Exh. A, at 11-13.) Petitioner has periodically 

made claims of U.S. citizenship under these different aliases, and provided false documentation of 

citizenship. (ld, Exh. B, at 34; Exh. C, at 39; Exh. H, at 69; Exh. P, at 111-12.) Petitioner has also 

conceded that he was born in Mexico on several occasions. (ld., Exh. B, at 34; Exh. C, at 39.) 

Petitioner has been removed from the United States at least ten times. Petitioner has been 

- 1 - llcvl004 

Case 3:11-cv-01004-BEN-JMA Document 9 Filed 11/28/11 Page 1 of 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 

ordered removed by an Immigration Judge ("IJ") on July 26, 1994; April 10, 1997; October 2, 1998; 

and April 7, 2005. (Id., Exh. E, at 53; Exh. F, at 59; Exh. H, at 75; Exh. N, at 105.) In addition, 

Petitioner has been removed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") on August 24, 1977; 

July 6, 1978; September 9, 1998; December 9, 2003; April 28, 2005; and May 29,2007. (Id, Exh. 

C, at 38-44; Exh. D, at 45-50; Exh. G, at 63-66; Exh. K, at 92-96; Exh. 0, at 108; Exh. S, at 136-46.) 

Petitioner has several state and federal felony and misdemeanor convictions. For instance, 

Petitioner was convicted of second degree robbery in 1977, second degree burglary in 1977, second 

degree burglary in 1986, possession ofa controlled substance in 1988, taking a vehicle without consent 

in 1989, grand theft in 1992, and possession ofacontrolled substance in 1995. (Id, Exh. A, at 17-18, 

20,26-27,29-31.) 

In 2001, Petitioner was found in a county jail in Colorado. (Id., Exh. I, at 80.) Petitioner was 

charged with unlawfully re-entering the United States subsequent to an aggravated felony conviction 

in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a)-(b). (Id. at 78-82.) Petitioner was convicted as charged, and 

sentenced to time served and three years supervised release. (Id. at 82-84.) Upon completing his 

sentence, Petitioner was transferred to ICE custody and removed to Mexico. (Id., Exh. K) 

On May 27, 2004, Petitioner, using an alias, applied for admission to the United States and 

claimed lawful permanent resident status. (Id, Exh. L, at 98.) ICE referred Petitioner for prosecution 

to the USAO in San Diego, California, after discovering that Petitioner had been previously ordered 

removed by an IJ. (Id.) Petitioner was charged with attempted entry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. 

§ 1326, but was acquitted by jury and released to ICE custody. (Id, Exh. M, at 99-101.) ICE initiated 

removal proceedings against Petitioner. (Id, Exh. N, at 103-04.) On April 7, 2005, the IJ found 

Petitioner removable as charged and ordered him removed to Mexico. (Id. at 105.) Petitioner was 

removed to Mexico on the same day. (Id. at 106.) 

On May 6, 2005, Petitioner, using another alias, applied for admission to the United States and 

declared he was a United States citizen. (Id., Exh. P, at 111-12.) AfterdiscoveringthatPetitionerwas 

a native and citizen ofMexico and had been ordered removed from the United States several times, 

ICE referred Petitioner for prosecution. (Id.) Petitioner was charged with making a false statement 

to a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001. (Id., Exh. Q, at 114-16~) On January 5, 2006, 

-2- llcvl004 

Case 3:11-cv-01004-BEN-JMA Document 9 Filed 11/28/11 Page 2 of 5
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

26 

27 

28 

Petitioner was convicted by jury and sentenced to 27 months in custody and three years supervised 

I 

release. (Id at 115; Exh. R, at 135.) After the completion ofhis sentence, retitioner was transferred 

to ICE custody. (Id, Exh. S, at 137-43.) On May 21,2007, ICE reinstated Petitioner's April 7, 2005 

removal order and removed him to Mexico on May 29,2007. (Id at 144-46.) 

On April 11, 2011, Petitioner was detained by Border Patrol agehts near Imperial Beach, 

California. (Id, Exh. T, at 152.) ICE referred Petitioner for prosecution to ~he USAO in San Diego, 

California, after discovering Petitioner's immigration history. (See id., Exps. T-U.) Petitioner was 

charged with violating 8 U.S.C. § 1326 and paroled into federal custidy at the Metropolitan 

Correctional Center ("MCC") pending completion of his criminal proceedings. (Id) On May 11, 

I 

2011, his criminal proceedings were dismissed. (Id, Exh. T, at 150.) The:next day, Petitioner was 

I 

released from MCC custody and returned to ICE custody pursuant to an imtnigration detainer. (Id., 

Klein Decl. , 2.) On May 13,2011, ICE initiated removal proceedings ag~nst Petitioner by issuing I 

a NT A that charged him with removability under 8 U .S.C. § 1182( a)( 6)(A)(i1' as an alien who has not 

been admitted or paroled. (ld, Exh. V, at 157-60.) In addition, ICE released Petitioner from custody 1 

on his own recognizance on May 13,2011. (ld at 161; Exh. W, at 164-67.) 

Petitioner filed the present Petition for Writ ofHabeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on May 

6,2011. (Docket No.1.) On June 17,2011, Respondent filed a Return in opposition to the Petition. I 

(Docket No.7.) Petitioner filed a Traverse on July 18,2011. (Docket No. *.) 

DISCUSSION 

Petitioner (1) challenges the lawfulness ofhis detention, (2) challenge~ his past removals from I 

I 

the United States, and (3) requests a declaratory judgment that he is a United States citizen. Each of 

I
 these issues will be addressed in turn. I 

I. CHALLENGE TO LAWFULNESS OF DETENTION I 

Petitioner alleges that his right to due process under the Fifth and Foufteenth Amendment has 

I 

been violated because "[Petitioner] has been in the custody of the I.N,Sl and its successor the 

Defendant, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) contfuously since 2005 by 

physical custody and/or illegal deportation to Mexico." (Petition at 6.) . 

Respondents have released Petitioner from custody under an order ofr~lease on recognizance. 

I 

I 

- 3 - llcvl004 

I 

I 

Case 3:11-cv-01004-BEN-JMA Document 9 Filed 11/28/11 Page 3 of 5
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

~ 

26 

27 

28 

(Return, Gross Decl. ,-r 4; Exhs. V -W.) Petitioner's challenge to the lawfulness ofhis detention is moot 

because there is no effective relief that can be granted. Accordingly, the dourt lacks subject matter 

jurisdiction over the claim because there is no live case or controversy rekaining. See Deakins v. 

Monaghan, 484 U.S. 193, 199 (1988); Ruiz v. City o/Santa Maria, 160 F.pd 543,548-49 (9th Cir. 

1998); Abdala v. INS, 488 F.3d 1061, 1064-65 (9th Cir. 2007) (release on +order of supervision is 

an example ofwhen a habeas petition claiming indefinite detention is moor. 

II. CHALLENGE TO PAST REMOVALS FROM THE UNITED STATES 

Petitioner alleges that Respondents violated the Petitioner's right to hue process oflaw under ! 

the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments because (1) Petitioner was wrongly ~emoved to Mexico after 

being acquitted by ajury of illegal re-entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326 in 2005, rd (2) the U wrongfully 

ordered that Petitioner be deported after Petitioner informed the U that he las acquitted by a jury of 

illegal re-entry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326. i 

Judicial review ofremoval orders is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, a1 amended by the REAL I 

ID Actof2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (2005). Under the REAL~D Act, any challenge to 

I 

Petitioner's removal order must be directed to the applicable court of appeafs: 

Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstattl.tory), including 

section 2241 ofTitle 28, ... a petition/or review filed with an app~opriate court 0/ 

appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole and exclfisive means for 

judicial review ofan order ofremoval entered or issued under any provision of this 

chapter, except as provided in subsection (e) of this section. FOr!· urposes of this 

chapter, in every provision that limits or eliminates judicial review r jurisdiction to 

reVIew, the terms 'judicial review' and 'jurisdiction to review' inclu e habeas corpus 

review pursuant to section 2241 ofTitle 28. I 

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (emphasis added). Petitioner, therefore, may not chal~.enge his removal order 

in this Court. However, the REAL ID Act also requires district courts to tr~fer all habeas petitions I 

brought by aliens that were pending before the district court on the effective date ofthe REAL ID Act 

I

(May 11,2005) to the appropriate circuit court. Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat, 231, § 106(a); see also 

.I 

Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1052-53 (9th Cir. 2005). To me extent that Petitioner 
 I 

challenges his past removal orders, this action is TRANSFERRED to the N'nth Circuit. 

r 

-4- llcvlO04 

Case 3:11-cv-01004-BEN-JMA Document 9 Filed 11/28/11 Page 4 of 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 

I 

In. REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT mAT PETITIONER IS AUNITED STATES 

CITIZEN 

Petitioner requests a declaratory judgment that he is a citizen ofthe nited States by birth. A 

person may not institute an action for declaratory judgment of United Stat s citizenship if the issue 

of the person's status as a citizen or national of the United States "(1) ose by reason of, or in 

connection with any removal proceeding under the provisions of this chapt r or any other act, or (2) 

is in issue in any such removal proceeding." 8 U.S.C. § 1503(a); Rios Valenzuela v. Dep't of 

Homeland Sec., 506 FJd 393, 397 (5th Cir. 2007) ("[A] purported citizen ay not initiate or begin 

a declaratory judgment action to establish his citizenship if it is already bei g litigated in a removal 

proceeding. "). Although a petitioner may obtain habeas review of a non-fri olous citizenship claim 

where removal proceedings are ongoing and the petitioner is in custody under Flores-Torres v. 

Mukasey, Flores-Torres applies only to petitioners who are currently det ·ned. Flores-Torres v. 

Mukasey, 548 F.3d 708, 711-13 (9th Cir. 2008); Sandoval-Vela v. Napolita 0, No. 1O-cv-0059-IEG 

(RBB), 2010 WL 431449, at *7 n.4 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29,2010). 

Here, Petitioner's citizenship claim arose out ofhis current removal roceedings, wherein the 

U will decide the issue of his citizenship. Petitioner also raised the issue oihis citizenship to the U 

in his prior removal proceedings, and the IJ denied his claim on April 7, 2b05. (Petition at 4.) In I 

addition, Petitioner has been released from custody on an Order ofRelease on ecognizance. (Return, 

Exhs. V-W.) Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction to issue a declarat ry judgment regarding 

Petitioner's citizenship. 

CONCLUSION 

To the extent that Petitioner challenges the lawfulness of his de ention and requests a 

declaratory judgment that he is a United States citizen, the Petition is DENI 

Petitioner challenges his past removal orders, this action is TRANSFERRE to the Ninth Circuit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: November«2011 

- 5 - llcvlO04 

Case 3:11-cv-01004-BEN-JMA Document 9 Filed 11/28/11 Page 5 of 5