Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01842/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-01842-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael Chertoff
Respondent
Alberto R. Gonzalez
Respondent
Stivan Singh
Petitioner

Document Text:

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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 Singh also appears to seek mandamus relief and relief under the Declaratory

Judgment Act and All Writs Act.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STIVAN SINGH,

Petitioner,

 v.

ALBERTO R. GONZALEZ, Attorney General

of the United States and MICHAEL

CHERTOFF, Secretary for the Department of

Homeland Security, 

Respondents.

 /

No. C 06-01842 JSW

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Petitioner Stivan Singh (“Singh”), who is in custody for the purposes of habeas corpus

relief because he is in custody of the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, has

filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1

BACKGROUND

Singh is a native and citizen of India, who entered the United States on April 25, 1998. 

(Pet., ¶ 8.) The government later instituted removal proceedings. In removal proceedings,

Singh admitted the factual allegations, and applied for asylum restriction on removal. (Id., ¶¶ 9-

10.) An Immigration Judge denied all forms of relief requested on April 16, 2001, a decision

petitioner appealed to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The BIA affirmed the IJ’s

decision on December 23, 2002 without opinion. (Id., ¶¶ 11-12.) Singh filed a peition for

Case 3:06-cv-01842-JSW Document 4 Filed 03/13/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

review with the Ninth Circuit on January 21, 2003, which was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

on April 27, 2004. (Id., ¶ 13.)

On March 2, 2005, Singh filed a petition for habeas corpus and request for a temporary

restraining order challenging his removal with this Court. (Id., ¶ 14.) On March 3, 2005, Singh

filed a motion to reopen with the BIA. (Id., ¶ 15.) The motion to reopen was denied on April

18, 2005, and Singh sought review with the Ninth Circuit. That appeal is still pending. (Id., ¶¶

16-18.) 

Singh has been detained in Respondents’ custody for more than six months, following

the BIA’s review and denial of the motion to reopen. (Id., ¶ 23.) Singh has requested that he be

released pending a decision on his appeal but that request has been denied. (Id., ¶¶ 24-26.)

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard.

This Court may entertain a petition for habeas corpus on behalf of a person “in custody

under or by color of the authority of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1). The Court

“shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the

writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person

detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243.

B. Singh’s Legal Claim.

Singh seeks federal habeas corpus relief and contends that Respondents have interpreted

8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) to permit them to detain him indefinitely and that this indefinite detention

has unlawfully restrained him of his liberty in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth

Amendment to the United States Constitution. Liberally construed, the claims appear colorable

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and merit an answer from respondents.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown:

1. Singh shall serve a copy of this Order, the petition, and all attachments thereto

upon Respondents no later than March 20, 2006. Singh shall file a proof of service with the

Court by March 24, 2006.

Case 3:06-cv-01842-JSW Document 4 Filed 03/13/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

2. Respondents shall file with the Court and serve on Singh, no later than April 20,

2006, an answer showing why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. If applicable,

Respondents shall file with the answer and serve on Singh a copy of all portions of the

administrative record that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.

3. If Singh wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse with

the Court and serving it on Respondents within 30 days of his receipt of the answer.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-01842-JSW Document 4 Filed 03/13/06 Page 3 of 3