Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03818/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03818-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
George Nimer Martha
Petitioner
United States Immigration Service
Respondent

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE NIMER MARTHA,

Petitioner,

v.

UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION

SERVICE,

Respondent. /

No. C 05-3818 SI (pr)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

George Nimer Martha filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus purportedly challenging

the lawfulness of his detention pending removal by the U.S. immigration authority formerly

known as the Immigration & Naturalization Service and now known as the Bureau of

Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

The petition has an incurable flaw: Martha cannot 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. 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. 

Case 3:05-cv-03818-SI Document 13 Filed 02/22/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Martha is currently in custody in Mule Creek State Prison serving a 6-year, 4-month

prison sentence following a 2002 conviction in San Mateo County Superior Court. See Petition,

Exh. D. Martha is not in custody under the authority of the immigration authority. The

immigration authority sent to Mule Creek State Prison an "immigration detainer - notice of

action" dated August 31, 2005. That detainer stated that an investigation had been initiated to

determine whether Martha was subject to removal from the United States and requested that he

be detained upon the completion of his state prison sentence. See Letter filed Sep. 28, 2005,

unnumbered exhibit. A CDC form labeled "inmate notification of detainer receipt," informed

Martha that the detainer had been filed against him by the immigration authority and noted his

scheduled release date is March 23, 2007. Id., p. 2. Because Martha is not in the immigration

authority's custody, his petition challenging the immigration authority's action or inaction must

be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Martha someday may be in the custody of the immigration

authority, but he must wait until that time to petition for writ of habeas corpus concerning the

immigration authority's action or inaction. 

Martha's in forma pauperis application is DENIED as unnecessary because he had already

paid the filing fee. (Docket # 8.) Martha's motion for release on bond is DENIED because this

court has no jurisdiction over the action. (Docket # 9.) 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 22, 2006 

 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03818-SI Document 13 Filed 02/22/06 Page 2 of 2