Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03068/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-03068-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Phillip Crawford
Respondent
Hang Nam Yoon
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

TERMPSREF

WO JKM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Hang Nam Yoon, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Phillip Crawford, 

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 06-3068-PHX-SMM (VAM)

ORDER

Petitioner Hang Nam Yoon (A35-138-732) has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of

Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The five dollar filing fee has been paid. The

Court will require an answer to the Petition.

I. Petition

On January 29, 2004, an immigration judge entered an order for Petitioner’s removal

from the United States. On August 9, 2004, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)

dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. Petitioner’s petition for review from the decision of the BIA

is currently pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the

court of appeals has granted Petitioner’s request for a stay of removal. See Yoon v.

Gonzales, No. 05-74544 (9th Cir. order filed Jan. 27, 2006). Petitioner alleges that he has

been detained in the Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona, since December of 2003.

Petitioner argues that his lengthy detention while his removal proceedings have been pending

is unlawful.

Case 2:06-cv-03068-SMM Document 3 Filed 01/30/07 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

TERMPSREF - 2 -

The REAL ID Act of 2005 does not deprive the Court of jurisdiction because the Act

was “not intended to ‘preclude habeas review over challenges to detention that are

independent of challenges to removal orders.’” Hernandez v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 42, 42-43

(1st Cir. 2005) (quoting H.R. Cong. Rep. No. 109-72, at 2873 (2005)); See also Nadarajah

v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 2006) (“By its terms, the jurisdiction-stripping

provision [of the REAL ID Act] does not apply to federal habeas corpus petitions that do not

involve final orders of removal.”). An answer will therefore be required.

II. Warnings

A. Address Changes

Petitioner must file and serve a notice of a change of address in accordance with Rule

83.3(d) of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner must not include a motion for other

relief with a notice of change of address. Failure to comply may result in dismissal of this

action.

B. Copies

Petitioner must serve Respondent, or counsel if an appearance has been entered, a

copy of every document that he files. FED. R. CIV. P. 5(a). Each filing must include a

certificate stating that a copy of the filing was served. FED. R. CIV. P. 5(d). Petitioner also

must submit an additional copy of every filing for use by the Court. LRCIV 5.4. Failure to

comply may result in the filing being stricken without further notice to Petitioner.

C. Possible dismissal

If Petitioner fails to timely comply with every provision of this Order, including these

warnings, the Court may dismiss this action without further notice. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet,

963 F.2d 1258, 1260-61 (9th Cir. 1992) (district court may dismiss action for failure to

comply with any order of the Court).

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Summons, Petition and this Order

upon the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona by certified mail addressed to the

civil process clerk at the office of the United States Attorney pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(A) of

Case 2:06-cv-03068-SMM Document 3 Filed 01/30/07 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

TERMPSREF - 3 -

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court also must send by certified mail

a copy of the Summons, Petition and this Order to the United States Attorney General

pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(B) and to Respondent pursuant to Rule 4(i)(2)(A).

(2) Respondent must answer the Petition within twenty (20) days of the date of

service. Respondent must not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without first

showing cause as to why an answer is inadequate.

(3) Petitioner may file a reply within twenty (20) days from the date of service of the

answer.

(4) The matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Virginia A. Mathis pursuant to Rules

72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report and

recommendation.

DATED this 26th day of January, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-03068-SMM Document 3 Filed 01/30/07 Page 3 of 3