Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05414/USCOURTS-azd-2_19-cv-05414-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nicky Juvenal Alvarez
Petitioner
Nicky Juvenal Alvarez-Caceres
Petitioner
Kris Kline
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 MW

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Nicky Juvenal Alvarez-Caceres,

aka Nicky J. Alvarez,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Kris Kline,

Respondent.

No. CV-19-05414-PHX-MTL (MTM)

ORDER

Petitioner Nicky Juvenal Alvarez-Caceres, who is confined in the CoreCivic 

Central Arizona Florence Correctional Complex (“CAFCC”) in Florence, Arizona, has 

filed a motion for leave to file a lodged pro se “Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and/or 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 and/or under ______ for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal 

Custody.” (Docs. 1-2). Petitioner has also filed a motion for leave to file excess pages 

(Docs. 9), a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3), motions for appointment of 

counsel (Docs. 4, 7, 11, 15), a motion for hearing (Doc. 6), and a motion in limine 

(Doc. 12).

I. Background

Petitioner is a native and citizen of Peru. He entered the United States on an 

unknown date and adjusted his status to that of a lawful permanent resident. On 

November 9, 2010, Petitioner was convicted in Las Vegas, Nevada of two counts of 

possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell, and sentenced to concurrent 

Case 2:19-cv-05414-MTL--MTM Document 16 Filed 06/09/20 Page 1 of 7
- 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

13-month terms of imprisonment in Clark County District Court, Case No. 10C262164.

1

 

Petitioner appealed his convictions and sentences, and on March 7, 2012, they were 

affirmed by the Nevada Supreme Court. Alvarez v. State, 2012 WL 762030 (Nev. Sup. 

Ct. Mar. 7, 2012). As a result of his convictions, Petitioner was placed in removal 

proceedings, and on September 29, 2015, an immigration judge ordered him removed

from the United States.

2

In December 2015, Petitioner was removed to Peru. (Doc. 2 at 

36.)

In 2019, Petitioner reentered the United States and was apprehended by 

immigration officials. He was then transferred into the custody of the United States 

Marshals Service, and on July 17, 2019, he was indicted with criminal reentry in 

violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). United States v. Alvarez-Caceres, CR-19-01847-TUCJGZ (BGM) (“CRDoc.”) (D. Ariz. Jul. 17, 2019). Petitioner subsequently moved to 

dismiss his indictment, challenging the removal order underlying his criminal reentry

charge. (CRDocs. 57, 74.) Following a hearing before the trial court, on May 12, 2020, 

his motions to dismiss were denied, and his case was set for trial. (CRDocs. 95-96.)

II. Petition

In his 303-page lodged Petition, Petitioner names CAFCC Warden Kris Kline as a 

Respondent and brings four grounds for relief. Petitioner summarizes his challenges as 

follows.

1. My 2019 ILLEGAL REENTRY CASE, CHALLENGING THE 

VALIDITY and/or THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MY 

DETENTION ON THIS ACTION and/or JUDICIAL REVIEW, 

WRIT, etc. criminal federal charges. PREJUDICE by counsel(s) 

on record, I’m suffering severe, extremely, unusual, etc. 

ineffective assistance of counsel(s), MALPRACTICE, THE 

TRIAL COURT, THE GOVERMENT, THE GOVERMENTS 

AGENTS, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT, etc[.], violation of 

1[st], 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 14th, amend, Etc. ‘FRUIT OF THE 

POISONOUS TREE.’

1 See https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/Anonymous/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=757

5283 (last accessed Jun. 5, 2020).

2 See https://portal.eoir.justice.gov/InfoSystem/CourtInfo (last accessed Jun. 5, 

2020).

Case 2:19-cv-05414-MTL--MTM Document 16 Filed 06/09/20 Page 2 of 7
- 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

2. My 2019 ICE/DHS/GOVERMENT’S AGENTS ILLEGAL 

HOLD, CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY and/or THE 

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF MY DETENTION ON THIS 

ACTION and/or JUDICIAL REVIEW, WRIT, etc. and/or for 

2019 ILLEGAL REMOVAUDEPORTATION without a hearing 

‘FAST TRACT DEPORTATION’ new law, president Trump’s 

executive power law! and/or JUDICIAL REVIEW, WRIT, etc. 

criminal federal charges. PREJUDICE by counsel(s) on record, 

I’m suffering severe, extremely, unusual, etc. ineffective 

assistance of counsel(s), MALPRACTICE, THE TRIAL 

COURT, THE GOVERMENT, THE GOVERMENTS 

AGENTS, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT, etc., violation of 1[st], 

4

th

, 5

th

, 6

th

, 8

th

, 14th, amend, Etc. ‘FRUIT OF THE POISONOUS 

TREE’ and CHALLENGING the merits of the 2015 FINAL 

ORDER OF REMOVAL.

3. My 2015 ILLEGAL REMOVAL PROCEDING and/or 2015 

ILLEGAL REMOVAL, CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY 

and/or THE CONSTITUTIONALITY ON MY DETENTION 

ON THAT ACTION and/or JUDICIAL REVIEW, WRIT, etc. I 

suffered severe, extremely, unusual, etc. PREJUDICE BY IJ, 

THE COURT, THE GOVERMENT, THE GOVERMENTS 

AGENTS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, etc[.] violation of 1[st], 4th, 

5

th, 6th, 8th, 14th, amend, etc. (immigration used the 2010 criminal 

case to deported me [i]n 2015, and for the 2015 warrantless 

arrest, IJ denied me to have WITNESSES and EVIDENCE 

and/or EVIDENCE of TIES on this country) and 

CHALLENGING the merits of the 2015 FINAL ORDER OF 

REMOVAL.

4. My 2010 ILLEGAL FELONY CRIMINAL CONVICTION 

CASE, Las Vegas N.V., CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY 

and/or THE CONSTITUTIONALITY ON MY DETENTION 

ON THAT ACTION and/or JUDICIAL REVIEW, WRIT, etc. 

PREJUDICE by counsel on record, I suffered severe, extremely, 

unusual, etc. Ineffective assistance of counsel(s), 

MALPRACTICE, BY THE TRIAL COURT, THE 

GOVERMENT, THE GOVERMENTS AGENTS, THE LAW 

ENFORCEMENT, etc[.], violation of 1[st], 4th, 5

th

, 6

th

, 8

th

, 14th,

amend, etc. (immigration used this case to deported me on 2015, 

and for the 2015 warrant-less arrest) I WAS PREJUDICE[D] BY 

COUNSEL ON RECORD, and deprived of a fair proceeding, by 

provide me constitutional Ineffective assistance of counsel, 

because of his erroneous behavior, deficient performance at the

proceeding and trial, on his own words ‘I’ll make sure that you 

lose your trial’ vindictive behavior making it a 2010 ILLEGAL 

FELONY CRIMINAL CONVICTION, etc.

(Doc. 2 at 5-6.) 

Petitioner asks the Court to: (1) reverse his state convictions, (2) dismiss his 

federal indictment, (3) order his immediate release from custody, and (4) enjoin his future 

transfer into the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).

Case 2:19-cv-05414-MTL--MTM Document 16 Filed 06/09/20 Page 3 of 7
- 4 -

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

III. Screening of the Petition

District courts are directed to screen habeas corpus petitions before requiring the 

government to file a response. A district court may summarily dismiss a habeas corpus 

petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that 

the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254.3 

See also McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (“Federal courts are authorized to 

dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face”); 

Clayton v. Biter, 868 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir. 2017) (“District courts adjudicating habeas 

petitions ... are instructed to summarily dismiss claims that are clearly not cognizable.”); 

Hernandez v. Sessions, 872 F.3d 976, 988 (9th Cir. 2017) (“Habeas jurisdiction over [] 

legal and constitutional claims is proper only if they are ‘colorable,’ i.e., ‘the claim must 

have some possible validity.’” (quoting Torres-Aguilar v. I.N.S., 246 F.3d 1267, 1271 

(9th Cir. 2001))); Gutierrez v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 1983) (Rule 4 

“explicitly allows a district court to dismiss summarily the petition on the merits when no 

claim for relief is stated”).

IV. Discussion

A. Federal Criminal Proceedings

Habeas corpus is not the appropriate vehicle for Petitioner’s pretrial challenges to 

his federal criminal proceedings. Because the issues raised, if resolved in his favor, 

would be dispositive of his pending criminal reentry charge, he must exhaust those claims 

by presenting them to the trial court and on direct appeal before he can assert them in a 

collateral habeas corpus action. See Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391 (1918) (“It is 

well settled that in the absence of exceptional circumstances in criminal cases the regular 

judicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus should not be granted in 

advance of a trial.”); Medina v. Choate, 875 F.3d 1025, 1029 (10th Cir. 2017) (“§ 2241 is 

not a proper avenue of relief for federal prisoners awaiting federal trial”); Timms v. 

Johns, 627 F.3d 525, 531 n. 5 (4th Cir. 2010) (observing that the general rule of 

3 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts 

apply to habeas corpus proceedings under § 2241. See Rule 1(b), foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

Case 2:19-cv-05414-MTL--MTM Document 16 Filed 06/09/20 Page 4 of 7
- 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

exhaustion before habeas corpus review has been extended to federal detainees); United 

States v. Pirro, 104 F.3d 297, 299 (9th Cir. 1997) (allowing defendants to simultaneously 

pursue both § 2241 petitions and raise challenges in their criminal proceedings “would 

eviscerate [the] goal of judicial economy by engaging the attention of two courts on the 

same case at the same time”); Thoresen v. Goodwin, 404 F.2d 338, 339 (9th Cir. 1968)

(“Trial, and not habeas corpus, is the appropriate manner of resolving the issue of guilt of 

the federal crime and subordinate issues relating to elements of the crime.”). In short, 

Petitioner’s claims should be raised in his ongoing criminal case, not in a pretrial 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 petition or § 2255 motion. 

B. Removal Proceedings and Order

Petitioner’s challenges to his 2015 removal proceedings and removal order are 

barred from habeas corpus review in district court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(9) (“Judicial 

review of all questions of law or fact ... arising from any action taken or proceeding 

brought to remove an alien from the United States ... shall be available only in judicial 

review of a final order of removal....”); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (“[A] petition for review 

filed with an appropriate court of appeals ... shall be the sole and exclusive means for 

judicial review of an order of removal ....”). His claims directly attack and are

inextricably linked with his removal proceedings, and therefore must have been or must 

be challenged before the agency and channeled through the petition-for-review process in 

the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. See Id.; J.E.F.M. v. Lynch, 837 F.3d 1026, 1031-32 

(9th Cir. 2016); Martinez v. Napolitano, 704 F.3d 620, 622 (9th Cir. 2012); Singh v. 

Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1210 (9th Cir. 2011); Singh v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 969, 978 (9th 

Cir. 2007). 

C. Immigration Detainer

Habeas corpus is not available to challenge an immigration detainer or “hold.” A

detainer is a request made by DHS for a law enforcement agency to provide notice prior 

to releasing an alien so that DHS may arrange to assume custody, should it decide to do 

so. See 8 C.F.R. § 287.7. A detainer, alone, does not place an individual in DHS 

Case 2:19-cv-05414-MTL--MTM Document 16 Filed 06/09/20 Page 5 of 7
- 6 -

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

custody, initiate removal proceedings, or guarantee that an individual will in fact be 

detained in DHS custody for removal proceedings. Therefore, a detainer does not place

an individual “in custody” for purposes of habeas corpus proceedings under § 2241. See 

28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(1), (3). And, insofar as Petitioner attempts to enjoin DHS from 

taking him into custody, or to preemptively litigate any defense to future removal 

proceedings, this Court lacks habeas corpus jurisdiction to address his claims. See 

8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5), (b)(9), (g).

D. State Convictions

It is a jurisdictional requirement that a habeas corpus petitioner challenging a state 

conviction be “‘in custody’ under the conviction or sentence under attack at the time his 

petition is filed.” Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490-91 (1989) (citing 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 2241(c)(3) & 2254(a); Carafas v, LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968)). When the 

sentence imposed for the conviction under attack has fully expired at the time the petition 

is filed, the petitioner does not meet the “in custody” requirement. Maleng, 490 U.S. at 

491-92. “[T]he collateral consequences of that conviction are not themselves sufficient 

to render an individual ‘in custody’ for the purposes of a habeas attack upon it.” Id. at 

492. 

Petitioner states that he “did [his] time” for his 2010 state convictions and “was 

release[ed] on HONORABLE DISCHARGE from parole.” Because Petitioner is not in

custody pursuant to his 2010 state convictions, the Court lacks habeas corpus jurisdiction

over his challenges to them. Maleng, 490 U.S. at 492; see also Bailey v. Hill, 599 F.3d 

976, 978-79 (9th Cir. 2010). To the extent immigration consequences of an expired state 

conviction could possibly satisfy the “in custody” requirement for federal habeas corpus 

review,

4

they do not do so in this instance. Petitioner is not in immigration custody and 

4 See Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 357 (2010) (“Although removal 

proceedings are civil, deportation is intimately related to the criminal process, which 

makes it uniquely difficult to classify as either a direct or a collateral consequence.”); but 

see Resendiz v. Kovensky, 416 F.3d 952, 956–58 (9th Cir. 2005) (immigration 

consequences of a state-court conviction constitute collateral consequences and do not 

satisfy the in-custody requirement for purposes of determining whether subject-matter 

jurisdiction is lacking), abrogated on other grounds by Chaidez v. United States, 568 

U.S. 342 (2013).

Case 2:19-cv-05414-MTL--MTM Document 16 Filed 06/09/20 Page 6 of 7
- 7 -

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

the removal proceedings related to his state convictions concluded in 2015. 

Accordingly, the Petition fails to state a cognizable claim for habeas corpus relief 

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2254, or 2255, and will be dismissed. 

IT IS ORDERED:

(1) Petitioner’s Motion for Leave (Doc. 1) is granted. The Clerk of Court shall 

file the lodged “Petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and/or 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and/or under 

______ for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody” (Doc. 2).

(2) Petitioner’s Petition (Doc. 2) and this case are dismissed without prejudice.

(3) The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly and terminate this case.

(4) Petitioner’s remaining motions (Docs. 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 15) are denied as 

moot.

(5) Pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, and Rule 

11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2255 Proceedings, in the event Petitioner files an 

appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability because reasonable jurists 

would not find the Court’s procedural ruling debatable. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 

473, 484 (2000).

Dated this 8th day of June, 2020.

Case 2:19-cv-05414-MTL--MTM Document 16 Filed 06/09/20 Page 7 of 7