Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01883/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01883-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ataulfo G. Ramirez
Petitioner
Wagner
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ATAULFO G. RAMIREZ, )

)

Petitioner, )

)

)

v. )

)

WAGNER, Warden, )

 )

Respondent. )

)

 )

1:09-cv—01883-SKO-HC

ORDER DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION (DOC. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO

CLOSE THE ACTION

Petitioner is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the

parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the United States

Magistrate Judge to conduct all further proceedings in the case,

including the entry of final judgment, by manifesting their

consent in writings signed by the parties or their

representatives and filed by Petitioner on November 11, 2009, and

on behalf of Respondent on December 15, 2009. Pending before the

Court is the petition, which was filed on October 27, 2009.

/// 

1

Case 1:09-cv-01883-SKO Document 10 Filed 07/14/10 Page 1 of 5
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

I. Screening the Petition 

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases in the United

States District Courts (Habeas Rules) requires the Court to make

a preliminary review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus.

The Court must summarily dismiss a petition "[i]f it plainly

appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the

petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court....”

Habeas Rule 4; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir.

1990); see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir.

1990). Habeas Rule 2(c) requires that a petition 1) specify all

grounds of relief available to the Petitioner; 2) state the facts

supporting each ground; and 3) state the relief requested. 

Notice pleading is not sufficient; rather, the petition must

state facts that point to a real possibility of constitutional

error. Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 1976 Adoption;

O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d at 420 (quoting Blackledge v.

Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 75 n. 7 (1977)). Allegations in a petition

that are vague, conclusory, or palpably incredible are subject to

summary dismissal. Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th

Cir. 1990).

Further, the Court may dismiss a petition for writ of habeas

corpus either on its own motion under Habeas Rule 4, pursuant to

the respondent's motion to dismiss, or after an answer to the

petition has been filed. Advisory committee notes to Habeas Rule

8, 1976 adoption; see, Herbst v. Cook, 260 F.3d 1039, 1042-43

(9th Cir. 2001).

II. Petitioner’s Claim

Petitioner is an alien incarcerated at the California City

2

Case 1:09-cv-01883-SKO Document 10 Filed 07/14/10 Page 2 of 5
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

Correctional Institution serving a sentence of fifty-one (51)

months for a conviction of unlawful reentry into the United

States. Petitioner challenges a deportation order dated August

2008 because 1) it violates his rights pursuant to the Eighth,

Ninth, Eleventh, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution; 2) removal would cause hardship to his family

members, who include children who are citizens of the United

States, and 3) the immigration authorities discriminate against

Hispanic immigrants and those who have spent time in the United

States. (Pet. 2-5.)

III. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 

This Court has a duty to determine its own subject matter

jurisdiction, and lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be

raised on the Court’s own motion at any time. Fed. R. Civ. P.

12(h)(3); CSIBI v. Fustos, 670 F.2d 134, 136 n. 3 (9 Cir. 1982) th

(citing City of Kenosha v. Bruno, 412 U.S. 507, 511-512 (1973)).

On May 11, 2005, the President signed into law the

"Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, The

Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005." Division B of

the Act is titled "REAL ID Act of 2005." Section 106 of the Act

amended Section 242 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8

U.S.C. § 1252) so as to render a petition for review to the

courts of appeal the sole and exclusive means of review of an

administrative order of removal, deportation, or exclusion.

Section 1252(a)(5) provides:

Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory

or nonstatutory), including section 2241 of Title 28,

or any other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361

and 1651 of such title, a petition for review filed

with an appropriate court of appeals in accordance with

3

Case 1:09-cv-01883-SKO Document 10 Filed 07/14/10 Page 3 of 5
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

this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for

judicial review of an order of removal entered or

issued under any provision of this chapter, except as

provided in subsection (e) of this section. For

purposes of this chapter, in every provision that

limits or eliminates judicial review or jurisdiction to

review, the terms "judicial review" and "jurisdiction

to review" include habeas corpus review pursuant to

section 2241 of Title 28, or any other habeas corpus

provision, sections 1361 and 1651 of such title, and

review pursuant to any other provision of law

(statutory or nonstatutory). 

In this case, Petitioner's challenge stems from an order of

deportation from the immigration authority. The language of 8

U.S.C. § 1252 precludes this Court from entertaining Petitioner’s

claim:

The jurisdictional provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 apply

to “all questions of law and fact... arising from any

action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien

from the United States,” so judicial review of claims

arising from such actions is governed exclusively by

that section. 

Rafaelano v. Wilson, 471 F.3d 1091, 1095 (9th Cir. 2006) (quoting

8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9)) . Therefore, this Court does not have 1

jurisdiction to hear Petitioner's claims. The claims should be

brought in a petition for review to the Ninth Circuit Court of

Appeals.

Section 1252(b)(9) provides:

1

Consolidation of questions for judicial review

Judicial review of all questions of law and fact, including

interpretation and application of constitutional and statutory

provisions, arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to

remove an alien from the United States under this subchapter shall

be available only in judicial review of a final order under this

section. Except as otherwise provided in this section, no court

shall have jurisdiction, by habeas corpus under section 2241 of

Title 28 or any other habeas corpus provision, by section 1361 or

1651 of such title, or by any other provision of law (statutory or

nonstatutory), to review such an order or such questions of law or

fact.

4

Case 1:09-cv-01883-SKO Document 10 Filed 07/14/10 Page 4 of 5
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

IV. Disposition

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

1) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and

2) The Clerk is DIRECTED to close the action because this

order terminates the action in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 14, 2010 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

ie14hj UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Case 1:09-cv-01883-SKO Document 10 Filed 07/14/10 Page 5 of 5