Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01806/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01806-1/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

---

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

WEI LIN,

Petitioner,

v.

RICHARD VALINKEN, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01806-EPG-HC

ORDER DENYING RESPONDENT’S 

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE RESPONSE TO PETITION

(ECF No. 12)

Petitioner Wei Lin is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner alleges violations of his right to due process in connection with 

his expedited removal proceedings and credible fear determination. (ECF No. 1). Petitioner also 

moves for a stay of removal. (ECF No. 4). The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a 

United States Magistrate Judge. (ECF Nos. 11, 13).

The Court conducted a preliminary review of the petition and determined that it was not 

clear from the face of the petition whether Petitioner is entitled to relief. On January 8, 2020, the 

Court ordered Respondent to file a response to both the petition and Petitioner’s motion for stay 

of removal within sixty days. (ECF No. 10).

On February 28, 2020, Respondent filed a status report, informing the Court that although 

Petitioner was scheduled for removal in early February 2020, the Department of Homeland 

Security (“DHS”) has temporarily suspended all removals to China due to the coronavirus 

Case 1:19-cv-01806-EPG Document 14 Filed 03/03/20 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

2

outbreak. (ECF No. 12 at 1). DHS indicates that Petitioner’s removal will be rescheduled as soon 

as the temporary suspension has been lifted. Accordingly, Respondent requests a ninety-day 

extension of time to file its answer to the petition because the “habeas petition challenging 

petitioner’s immigration detention will become moot once the removal order is executed.” (ECF 

No. 12 at 2). 

Given that the petition raises due process challenges to Petitioner’s expedited removal 

proceedings and Petitioner has moved for a stay of removal, Respondent’s request for an 

extension of time so that the removal order can be executed is looked upon with disfavor. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Respondent’s request for a ninety-day extension of time to file a response to the petition 

is DENIED;

2. Respondent SHALL FILE a response to Petitioner’s motion for stay of removal on or 

before March 9, 2020;1

3. Within THIRTY (30) days of the date of service of this order, Respondent SHALL FILE 

a RESPONSE to the Petition. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases;2 

Cluchette v. Rushen, 770 F.2d 1469, 1473–74 (9th Cir. 1985) (court has discretion to fix 

time for filing a response). A Response can be made by filing one of the following: 

A. AN ANSWER addressing the merits of the Petition. Any argument by 

Respondent that Petitioner has procedurally defaulted a claim SHALL BE 

MADE in the ANSWER, but must also address the merits of the claim 

asserted. 

B. A MOTION TO DISMISS the Petition. 

4. Within THIRTY (30) days after service of this order, Respondent SHALL FILE any and 

all transcripts or other documents necessary for the resolution of the issues presented in 

1

In light of Petitioner’s scheduled removal for early February 2020 that has been temporarily suspended, the Court 

will not entertain any motion for extension of time to respond to the motion for stay of removal absent extraordinary 

circumstances.

2 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to § 2241 habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing 

Section 2254 Cases (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered 

by” 28 U.S.C. § 2254.).

Case 1:19-cv-01806-EPG Document 14 Filed 03/03/20 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

3

the Petition. See Rule 5(c), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The transcripts or 

other documents shall only be filed electronically and, to the extent practicable, 

provided in Optical Character Recognition (“OCR”) format. Respondent shall not 

file a hard copy of the transcripts or other documents unless so ordered by this 

Court.

5. If Respondent files an Answer to the Petition, Petitioner MAY FILE a Traverse within 

THIRTY (30) days of the date of service of Respondent’s Answer. If no Traverse is 

filed, the Petition and Answer are deemed submitted at the expiration of the thirty days.

6. If Respondent files a Motion to Dismiss, Petitioner SHALL FILE an Opposition or 

Statement of Non-Opposition within TWENTY-ONE (21) days of the date of service of 

Respondent’s Motion. Any Reply to an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss SHALL be 

filed within SEVEN (7) days after the opposition is served. The Motion to Dismiss will 

be deemed submitted TWENTY-EIGHT (28) days after the service of the Motion or 

when the Reply is filed, whichever comes first. See Local Rule 230(l).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 3, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01806-EPG Document 14 Filed 03/03/20 Page 3 of 3