Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02124/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-02124-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kamel Hamid Ali Alfadheli
Petitioner
Phillip Crawford
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

WO JKM

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kamel Hamid Ali Alfadheli, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Phillip Crawford, 

Respondent. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 05-2124-PHX-JAT (LOA)

ORDER

Petitioner Kamel Hamid Ali Alfadheli (A71-725-292), who is confined in the

Immigration Service Processing Center in Florence, Arizona, 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.

Petitioner alleges that immigration officials are holding him in detention pending his

removal to Iraq, but that his removal cannot be effected. Petitioner argues that he is entitled

to immediate release from custody because his indefinite detention with no prospect that his

removal will be effected in the reasonably foreseeable future is not authorized by law. See

Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (when there is no reasonable likelihood that a

foreign government will accept an alien’s return in the reasonably foreseeable future, the INS

may not detain the alien for more than the presumptively reasonable period of six months);

Clark v. Martinez, 125 S. Ct. 716 (2005) (extending the holding in Zadvydas to inadmissible

Case 2:05-cv-02124-JAT Document 4 Filed 11/18/05 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

1

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

Petitioner’s claim 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)).

- 2 -

aliens). An answer will be required.1

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

(1) That Petitioner’s Motion to Grant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 3)

is denied without prejudice as premature.

(2) That the Clerk of Court shall 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

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court also shall 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).

(3) That Respondent shall answer the Petition within twenty (20) days of the date of

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

showing cause as to why an answer is inadequate.

(4) That Petitioner shall serve upon Respondent, or if appearance has been entered

by counsel, upon the attorney, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted

for consideration by the Court. Petitioner shall include with the original document and copy,

to be filed with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the date a true and correct copy

of the pleading or document was mailed to Respondent or the counsel. Any paper received

by a District Court Judge or Magistrate Judge which has not been filed with the Clerk of the

Court may be disregarded by the Court.

(5) That a clear, legible copy of every pleading or other document filed shall

accompany each original pleading or other document filed with the Clerk for use by the

District Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom the case is assigned and additional copies for

Case 2:05-cv-02124-JAT Document 4 Filed 11/18/05 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

- 3 -

each Judge in three-judge cases. See LRCiv 5.4. Failure to comply with this requirement

may result in the pleading or document being stricken without further notice to Petitioner.

(6) That at all times during the pendency of this action, Petitioner shall immediately

advise the Court and the United States Marshal of any change of address and its effective

date. Such notice shall be captioned “Notice of Change of Address.” The notice shall

contain only information pertaining to the change of address and its effective date. The

notice shall not include any motions for any other relief. Petitioner shall serve a copy of the

Notice of Change of Address on all opposing parties. Failure to file a Notice of Change of

Address may result in the dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

(7) That the matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Lawrence O. Anderson 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 16th day of November, 2005.

Case 2:05-cv-02124-JAT Document 4 Filed 11/18/05 Page 3 of 3