Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00255/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00255-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Chertoff
Defendant
Ramji Lal
Petitioner

Document Text:

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RAMJI LAL, ) 1:07-cv-00255-OWW-TAG HC

)

Petitioner, ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

 ) GRANT RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

v. ) PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

) FOR MOOTNESS (Doc. 6)

MICHAEL CHERTOFF, ) 

 ) ORDER DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE 

Respondent. ) OBJECTIONS WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

 )

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

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

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. 

Petitioner originally filed documents with this Court on February 16, 2007 . (Doc. 1). The

documents did not include a form petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

Instead, the filing consisted of several letters and notices apparently sent to Petitioner’s attorney

regarding his unsuccessful appeal of the final order of removal. Nevertheless, the Clerk of the Court

construed the filing as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and the case was referred to this United

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302. The

documents suggest that, at the time they were filed, Petitioner was in the custody of the United States

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). 

On May 1, 2007, Respondent filed the instant motion to dismiss on grounds that Petitioner

had been released under supervision and thus any habeas claim of unlawful detention was moot. 

(Doc. 6). Petitioner has filed no response to the motion to dismiss.

Case 1:07-cv-00255-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 06/28/07 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

 The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases can be applied to petitions other than those brought under § 2254 at the Court’s 1

discretion. See, Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases

.

 On May 11, 2005, Public Law 109-13 was enacted. REAL ID Act of 2005, PL 109-13, 119 Stat 231. 

2

Section 106 of that law (i.e., “RIDA”), is entitled “Judicial Review of Orders of Removal.” Section 106 amends 28 U.S.C.

§ 1252, providing in pertinent part as follows:

“Notwithstanding any other provisions of law (statutory or non-statutory), including section 2241 of title 28, United

States Code, or any other habeas corpus provision...a petition for review filed in an appropriate court of appeals in accordance

with this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued under any

provision of this Act, except as provided in subsection (e)....”(Emphasis supplied.)

The plain language of Section 106 thus divests the federal district court of jurisdiction in habeas corpus cases

involving challenges to a final order of removal, deportation, or exclusion, and places exclusive jurisdiction for judicial

review of such orders in the federal appeals court for the district in which the removal order was issued. Thus, although

the documents construed in this case by the Clerk of Court as a habeas petition do not expressly allege unlawful detention

2

DISCUSSION

A federal court may only grant a petition for writ of habeas corpus if the petitioner can show

that “he is in custody in violation of the Constitution . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A habeas

corpus petition is the correct method for a prisoner to challenge the “legality or duration” of his

confinement. Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th Cir.1991), quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 

411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973); Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section

2254 Cases. However, the petition must “allege facts concerning the applicant’s commitment or

detention,” 28 U.S.C. § 2242, and the Petitioner must make specific factual allegations that would

entitle him to habeas corpus relief if they are true. O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th 

Cir.1990). If it may be conclusively determined from the face of the petition that Petitioner is not

entitled to relief on the grounds alleged, then the petition must be dismissed. Rule 4 of the Rules

Governing § 2254 Cases ; Peterson v. Wilson, 373 F.2d 737, 738 (9th Cir.1967). 1

Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court is required to make a

preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. “If it plainly appears from the face of

the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief,” the Court must dismiss the petition. Rule

4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also, Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.

1990). 

In the instant case, the only issue properly before this Court is the constitutionality of

Petitioner’s detention by Respondent, and the only relief which the Court could afford to Petitioner 2

Case 1:07-cv-00255-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 06/28/07 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

by ICE– to the contrary, the only documents in the “petition” appear to challenge Petitioner’s final order of removal–such

unlawful detention is the only issue this Court has jurisdiction to consider under the RIDA. If Petitioner intended to

challenge the final order of removal, his only remedy is to file a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals

for the Ninth Circuit.

3

in these proceedings is an order releasing him from custody, in the event that the Court determined

that his continued detention by ICE indeed was unlawful. 

The record now before the Court establishes that Petitioner was released from Respondent’s

custody on February 23, 2007. (Doc. 6-2, p. 1). Thus, since there is no further relief that the Court

can afford Petitioner, Respondent’s motion to dismiss for mootness should be GRANTED and the

Petition should be DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS as follows:

1. Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6), should be GRANTED;

2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1), should be DISMISSED for failure to

state a claim as it is now MOOT.

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the

Local Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within

twenty (20) days after being served with a copy, any party may file written objections with the court

and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate

Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The District Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s

ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(c)). The parties are advised that failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst,

951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2007 /s/ Theresa A. Goldner 

j6eb3d UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 1:07-cv-00255-OWW -TAG Document 7 Filed 06/28/07 Page 3 of 3