Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01796/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01796-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alberto Gonzales
Defendant
Enrique Rodriguez-Macias
Plaintiff

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

JKM

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Enrique Rodriguez-Macias, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Alberto Gonzales, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-1796-PHX-DGC (MEA)

ORDER

Plaintiff Enrique Rodriguez-Macias, who is confined in the Eloy Detent ion Center

in Eloy, Arizona, has filed a pro se Civil Right s Complaint. Plaintiff also has filed an

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis and seven ot her motions. Plaintiff’s

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis will be granted, but the action will be dismissed.

IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION

Plaintiff is confined in an immigration detention facility awaiting the conclusion of

civil deportation proceedings. Plaintiff is therefore not subject to the Prison Litigation

Reform Act (“PLRA”) fee payment requirements that apply to “prisoners.” Agyeman v.

INS, 296 F.3d 871, 886 (9th Cir. 2002) (“the filing fee requirements of the PLRA do not apply

to an alien detainee proceeding in forma pauperis”). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Application

to Proceed in Forma Pauperis will be granted.

////

////

Case 2:05-cv-01796-DGC--MEA Document 13 Filed 12/28/05 Page 1 of 4
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 Court takes judicial notice of Plaintiff’s proceedings in the Ninth Circuit

pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. See United States ex rel. Robinson

Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir.1992) (a court may take

judicial notice “of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the federal judicial

system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue”).

- 2 -

COMPLAINT AND SCREENING ORDER

A. Standard of Review

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B), a district court is required to dismiss an in forma

pauperis case at any time if the court determines that the action “(i) is frivolous or

malicious; (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary

relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B); see

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e) “applies to all in

forma pauperis complaints, not just those filed by prisoners”).

B. Complaint

Plaintiff is a native and citizen of Mexico who was admitted to the United States on

June 1, 1980. On May 3, 2004, Plaintiff pleaded guilty to one count of annoying or

molesting a child under the age of 18 in violation of § 647.6(a) of the California Penal Code.

He was sent enced t o serve 60 days in jail as a condition of his three year term of probation.

On May 17, 2004, the Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear

charging that Plaintiff was removable under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(E)(i) as an alien convicted

of a child abuse offense. An immigration judge apparently issued an order for Plaintiff’s

removal from the United States. In his Comp laint , Plaintiff alleged that his appeal was

pending with the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). The docket1

 of the United States

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, however, reflects that Plaint iff filed a petition for

review in the court of appeals on July 5, 2005. Rodriguez-Macias v. Gonzales, No. 05-73950

(9th Cir. filed Jul. 5, 2005). Plaintiff’s appeal is still pending with the Ninth Circuit. Id.

On M arch 21, 2005, Plaintiff filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging his

removal proceedings. See Rodriguez-Macias v. Bureau of Immigration and Customs

Case 2:05-cv-01796-DGC--MEA Document 13 Filed 12/28/05 Page 2 of 4
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 -

Enforcement, CV 05-0235-TUC-DCB (D. Ariz.). On June 6, 2005, the prior habeas corpus

action was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and for lack of

jurisdiction under the REAL ID Act of 2005. Id. at Doc. # 4. 

In his Civil Rights Comp laint , Plaintiff asserts three counts against Defendant

United States At t orney General Alberto Gonzales: (1) that Plaintiff’s immigration removal

proceedings are unlawful because federal officials lack subject matter jurisdiction to

enforce laws that fall within the authority of the states and that the immigration

proceedings are therefore arbitrary and capricious; (2) that the immigration charges are

improper because “ no record of conviction affirmate [sic] violation of the Act,” Petition at

5; and (3) that his current detention is unlawfully based upon “a collusion between Federal

and state government” and upon a “legal theory [that is] not cognizable under the

Immigration and Nationality Act for deportation,” Petition at 6.

C. Failure to State a Claim

Plaintiff’s claims challenging an order of removal and seeking release from

confinement are not cognizable in a civil rights action. See Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S.

475, 484 (1973) (a p et it ion for writ of habeas corpus is the only proper mechanism for a

detainee to challenge the legality or duration of his confinement). This action will not be

treated as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, however, because Plaintiff has failed to

exhaust judicial remedies and because this Court is without jurisdiction to entertain a

habeas corpus action challenging an order of removal.

“[A]s a prudential matter, . . . habeas petit ioners [must] exhaust available judicial and

administrative remedies before seeking relief under § 2241.” Castro-Cortez v. INS, 239 F.3d

1037, 1047 (9th Cir. 2001). Because his petition for review is still pending in the Nint h

Circuit, Plaintiff has not exhausted available judicial remedies with respect to his claims

challenging the propriety of his removal order. Additionally , in light of the amendment

made to 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) by the REAL ID Act of 2005, those claims are now cognizable

only in the court of appeals and not in a § 2241 habeas corpus petition filed with the

district court. See Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005) (Division B, Section

Case 2:05-cv-01796-DGC--MEA Document 13 Filed 12/28/05 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

106(a)(1)(B)) (an order of removal may only be reviewed in the courts of appeals). Whether

brought as a civil rights action or as a p et it ion for writ of habeas corpus, Plaintiff’s

challenge to his removal proceedings is not cognizable in this Court . Accordingly, the

action will be dismissed.

Plaintiff has also filed seven largely incomprehensible motions. Those motions will

be denied because, to the extent they are comp rehensible at all, they merely restate the

claims made in the Complaint.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in Forma

Pauperis (Doc. 3) is granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaint iff’s Motion of Request (Doc. # 4), Motion

in Sup p ort (Doc. # 6), “Resubmition Motion” (Doc. # 7), Motion to Petition a Subpoena

(Doc. # 8), Motion to Modify (Doc. # 9), and “Motion to Affirmate” (Docs. # 10 & # 11) are

denied. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Complaint and t his action are dismissed. The

Clerk of Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

DATED this 27th day of December, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-01796-DGC--MEA Document 13 Filed 12/28/05 Page 4 of 4