Opinion ID: 687685
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Successive Criminal and Civil Detention

Text: 19 Pena-Carrillo next argues that the indictment should be dismissed, because his uninterrupted incarceration between March 5 (the date of arrest) and April 28 (the date the indictment issued) violated the Speedy Trial Act. We affirm the district court's conclusion that Pena-Carrillo's detention did not violate the Speedy Trial Act. 20 We review questions of law concerning the Speedy Trial Act de novo, while factual findings are reviewed for clear error. United States v. Cepeda-Luna, 989 F.2d 353, 354 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Nash, 946 F.2d 679, 680 (9th Cir.1991). After being arrested on March 5, 1993, Pena-Carrillo remained in criminal detention until April 19, 1993, the date on which Magistrate-Judge Coffin dismissed the original complaint. Upon dismissal of the original complaint against Pena-Carrillo, the district court placed him in the custody of the INS, where he remained until the indictment was returned on April 28, 1993. 21 Pena-Carrillo argues that the district court erred in requiring him to produce evidence of collusion between INS and prosecutors. This argument is foreclosed by our decision in Cepeda-Luna. Charges should only be dismissed where prolonged civil detention is the result of collusion or ruse between prosecutors and the INS, designed to bypass the Speedy Trial Act. Cepeda-Luna, 989 F.2d at 354. In Cepeda-Luna, we held that the Speedy Trial Act's prohibitions were not triggered merely because the defendant was subject to successive civil and criminal detention. 22 Pena-Carrillo contends that, even if he is required to show collusion or ruse, the district court clearly erred in finding no such misconduct in his case. We disagree. The evidence cited by Pena-Carrillo provides neither direct nor indirect support for his contention that prosecutors conspired with INS to extend his detention until an indictment could be returned. 23 Pena-Carrillo argues that evidence of collusion exists in the fact that the Government hurriedly indicted him out of district. The Assistant U.S. Attorney acknowledged that his own negligence was responsible for the failure to file an indictment within 30 days of Pena-Carrillo's arrest. By taking the somewhat unusual step of indicting out of district in Portland rather than in Eugene, prosecutors ensured that the indictment would issue while Pena-Carrillo was still in civil custody. Yet this does not demonstrate that the prosecutor intended to evade the Speedy Trial Act--on the contrary, it suggests that, after his initial negligence, the prosecutor was attempting to bring the defendant to trial as quickly as possible. 24 The fact that criminal authorities knew of the pending immigration proceedings is not enough to demonstrate that officials conspired to evade the 30 day limit. United States v. Orbino, 981 F.2d 1035, 1036-37 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 114 S.Ct. 256, 126 L.Ed.2d 208 (1993). There is no evidence that prosecutors and INS officials communicated between April 19 (the date the complaint was dismissed) and April 28 (the date that the INS agent was called to testify before the grand jury that later returned the indictment). The Assistant U.S. Attorney testified that he purposely avoided contacting INS during this period, in order to avoid even the appearance of collusion or ruse. The district court's finding that there was no collusion or ruse on the part of the Government is not clearly erroneous.