Opinion ID: 158852
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Habeas Arguments

Text: 17 Even though the issue before this court centers on whether the Bivens class action was properly before the district court, appellants focus solely on Tuong's amended habeas petition and the rulings in that action, and attempt to bootstrap to any jurisdiction the district court may have had to entertain the original habeas petition. They contend that they prevailed for EAJA purposes on their habeas claim brought pursuant to § 2241, not on the Bivens claim brought pursuant to section 1331. Appellants' Reply Br. at 5. Appellants' contention directly contradicts their motion for attorney fees and costs, which was filed in the Bivens class action, not in Tuong's amended habeas action. 18 Appellants assert that they simply reformed and re-filed the habeas claim as a Bivens action, erroneously claiming that the plaintiffs in the Bivens class action were the identical parties as petitioners in the habeas claim. Appellants' Reply Br. at 4. The amended habeas petition, however, listed only Tuong, individually, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, and did not include the six named plaintiffs in the Bivens class action. Appellants' App. at 13. Even if the district court had jurisdiction to hear Tuong's original habeas claims based on alleged illegal indeterminate detention, an issue we do not decide here, that jurisdiction did not automatically extend to the Bivens class action which raised totally different issues. For this reason, appellants' argument that the jurisdictional question should hinge on our recent ruling in Jurado-Gutierrez v. Greene, 190 F.3d 1135 (10th Cir.1999), in which we held that there remains an independent, alternative right to habeas review in immigration cases under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, notwithstanding the sweeping changes made by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996), is without merit. The resolution of this matter is simply not governed by habeas law.