N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
FER NANDO M ENENDEZ-GONZALEZ, Pe titione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. KIR STJEN NIELSEN, Se c re t ary of Hom e la nd Se c urity , e t a l., R e sponde nts-Appe lle e s. No. 17-55507 D.C
. No. 2:16-c v-03544-FM O-AS
M EM OR ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia Fe rnando M . Olguin, District Judge , Pre siding Argue d an d Subm i tte d De c e m be r 3, 2018 Pa sa de n a , C a l ifornia
B e fore : TASHIM A a

nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd KENNELLY, ** Distric t Judge
. 

# F IL ED DEC 31 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.
** The Honora

ble M atthe w F. Ke nne lly , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the N orthe rn Distric t of Illinois, sitting by de signa tion. 1Fe rnando M e ne nde z -Gonz a le z a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt's dismissa l of his pe tition for a

writ of ha

be a s c orpus for la c k of subje c t-m atte r jurisdic tion a nd de nia l of his m o tions for le ave to file se c ond a nd third a m e nde d pe titions. He
argue s tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in c onc luding tha t 8 U.S.C . §§ 1252(a)(5) and (b)(9) strippe d the c ourt of jurisdic tion ove r his pe t ition. Here lie s on Singh v
. Gonzale s , 499 F.3d 969 (9th C ir. 2007), in which this C o urt re c ogniz e d a lim ite d
e xc e ption to 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(9) for ha be a s pe titions c ha lle n ging c onduc t tha t oc c urre d “ a

fte r the issua nc e of the fina l orde r of re m ova l” whose e ffe c t is to deny the p e titione r “ a

da y in c ourt.” Singh , 499 F.3d a t 979. M e ne nde z -Gonz a le z a lle ge s tha t the De pa

rtm e nt of Hom e l and Se c urity fa ile d to prope rly

se rve him

with thefina l orde r of re insta te m e nt of re m ova l a

nd that DHS c anc e lle d the re insta te m e nt orde r by

re l e a sing him from

c ustody and pe rm itting him

to pursuelitiga

tion c ha lle nging his de

porta tion orde r. He c o nte nds that the se a c tions pre ve nte d him from tim e ly filing a

pe tition for re vie win this C ourt a nd tha t the distric t c ourt m ay

the re fore e xe rc ise ha

be a s jurisdic tion unde r Singh
. The C ourt c onside re d a nd re j e c te d the se argum e nts whe n it dism isse d his pe tition for re vie w a s untim e ly
. Se e Me ne nde z-Gonzale

z v . Ly nc h , No. 16-71515 (9th C ir. Se pt. 21, 2016). In tha t c a se , this C ourt dismisse d his pe tition a fte r both 2pa

rtie s e xte nsive ly

brie fe d the se issue s. The a uthoritie s c i te d in tha

t m e m orandum disposition furthe

r de m onstra

te tha t the C ourt wa s not pe rsua d e d by M e ne nde z Gonz a le z 's a

rgum e nts. For e xam

ple , the C ourt c i te d 8 U.S.C . § 1252(b)(1) a nd 8 C .F.R . § 241.8, whic h pre s c ribe the proc e dure s for re insta ting re m ova l orde rs. The C ourt a lso c i te d C

astro-C orte z v . Holde r , 239 F.3d 1037, 1046 n.10 (9th C ir. 2001), in whic h the C ourt m a de its own findings of fa c t a bout whe the r the re wa s le ga l c a use for the pe titione r's untim e ly filing. Ta

ke n toge the r, the se c ita

tions de m onstra

te tha t the e arlie r pane l of this C ourt re je c te d M e ne nde z -Gonz a le z ’ s argum e nts tha

t DHS's c onduc t wa s the le ga l c a use of his de la

y in filing the

pe tition for re vie w. Our e arlie r de c ision pre c lude s M e ne nde z -Gonz a l e z from re litiga ting the se sam e argum e nts to support subje c t-m atte r jurisdic tion ove r his ha be a s pe t ition. Se e Be auc hamp v . Anahe im Union High Sch. Dist. , 816 F.3d 1216, 1225 (9th C ir. 2016) (“ C olla

te ra l e stoppe l, or issuepre c lusion, ba rs the re litiga

tion of issue s a c tua lly a djudic ate d in pre vious litiga tion be twe e n the sa

m e pa rtie s.” ). And the distric t c o urt did not err in de ny ing them otions for le ave to file am e nde d pe titions; it is c le ar, ba se d on the fore going a na ly sis, tha

t the propose d am e ndm e nts would be

3futile for la c k of subje c t-m atte r jurisdic tion. S e e C a rv alho v . Equifax

Info. Se rv

s. LLC , 629 F.3d 876, 893 (9th C ir. 2010). Fina lly , be c a

u se M e ne nde z -Gonz a le z 's a rgum e nts a

re ba rre d by issue pre c lusion, wene e d not re a c h the unde rly ing que stion of whe the r the Singh
e xc e ption would othe

rwise c o nfe r jurisdic tion ove r his ha be a s pe tition. AFFIRM E D.

4