Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02874/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-02874-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Thomas Carey
Respondent
Joselito Ricafort
Petitioner

Document Text:

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSELITO RICAFORT,

Petitioner,

v.

THOMAS CAREY, warden,

Respondent. /

No. C 06-2874 MHP (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

Joselito Ricafort has filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

alleging that he should be released on bail while removal proceedings are pursued against

him. His petition is now before the court for initial review.

The petition discloses that, at the time he filed this petition, petitioner was in custody

at the California Medical Facility in Vacaville serving a sentence on a conviction from San

Francisco County Superior Court. A detainer letter had been filed on December 20, 2005 by

the U.S. immigration service – formerly known as the Immigration & Naturalization Service

and now known as, and referred to throughout this order, as the Bureau of Immigration and

Customs Enforcement ("BICE"). 

The petition has an incurable flaw: petitioner does not meet the custody requirement. 

Federal jurisdiction over a petition for a writ of habeas corpus exists only for petitions filed

by persons "in custody" at the time the petition is filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c); Carafas v.

Case 3:06-cv-02874-MHP Document 4 Filed 08/30/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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

LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). “‘[T]he bare detainer letter alone does not sufficiently

place an alien in INS custody to make habeas corpus available.’” Campos v. INS, 62 F.3d

311, 314 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Garcia v. Taylor, 40 F.3d 299, 303 (9th Cir. 1994)). The

petitioner has to be in custody for the action he seeks to challenge in his habeas petition at

the time he files his petition. At the time of the filing of the petition here, petitioner was

incarcerated in a California prison serving a sentence following a conviction in state court

and not as a result of the BICE detainer filed against him at the time he filed this action. He

had no right to bail while serving his state prison sentence. Because he was not in BICE's

custody when he filed the action, his petition challenging BICE's action or inaction on his

bail request must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

This action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. The clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 29, 2006 

Marilyn Hall Patel

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02874-MHP Document 4 Filed 08/30/06 Page 2 of 2