Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00504/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00504-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Philip Crawford
Respondent
Thebe Eric Monyamane
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

Thebe Eric Monyamane, 

Petitioner,

vs.

Philip Crawford, 

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-0504-PHX-SMM (JCG)

ORDER

Petitioner Thebe Eric Monyamane (A27-333-142), who is confined in the Eloy

Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The $5.00 filing fee has been paid. The Court will require

Respondent to answer the Petition.

I. Petition

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

removal to Lesotho, 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

Case 2:07-cv-00504-SMM Document 4 Filed 05/01/07 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 -

months); Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (2005) (extending the holding in Zadvydas to

inadmissible aliens). 

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.”). The Court will therefore require Respondent to answer

the Petition.

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:

Case 2:07-cv-00504-SMM Document 4 Filed 05/01/07 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 -

(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

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 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 20 days from the date of service of the answer.

(4) This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Guerin 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 30th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-00504-SMM Document 4 Filed 05/01/07 Page 3 of 3