Ferron v. Holder et al

Filing 7

ORDER, granting Petitioner's 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and this action are dismissed; the Clerk must enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 5/16/11.(REW)

Download PDF
1 WO JKM 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 John Emmanuel Ferron, Petitioner, 10 11 vs. 12 Eric H. Holder, Jr., et al., 13 Respondents. 14 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. CV 11-0290-PHX-GMS (MEA) ORDER 15 16 Petitioner John Emmanuel Ferron (A015-214-221), who is confined in the Eloy 17 Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and an Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis 19 (Doc. 3). The Court will grant the Application and dismiss the Petition as moot in part and 20 for lack of jurisdiction in part. 21 Petitioner challenges an Immigration Judge’s (IJ) November 24, 2010 order of 22 removal directing that he be deported to Jamaica. Petitioner claims that the order of removal 23 is unlawful because the IJ did not give him an opportunity to defend himself. Petitioner also 24 claims that detention officers’ interference with his legal mail will cause the Board of 25 Immigration Appeals (BIA) to reject his appeal from the IJ’s order. The Court lacks 26 jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s first claim and his second claim is moot. 27 Under the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 (May 11, 2005), 28 the district courts do not have habeas corpus jurisdiction to review an order of removal. Iasu 1 v. Smith 511 F.3d 881, 886 (9th Cir. 2007). The REAL ID Act amended 8 U.S.C. 2 § 1252(a)(5) to provide that “a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals 3 in accordance this section shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an 4 order of removal entered or issued under any provision of this [Act]”). 5 § 1252(a)(5). This Court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s challenge to his 6 November 2010 order of removal. 8 U.S.C. 7 Petitioner’s claim that detention officers’ interference with his legal mail will cause 8 the BIA to reject his appeal is belied by exhibits he filed on April 4, 2010. Those documents 9 reveal that Petitioner’s appeal was accepted and is currently pending before the BIA. Doc. 6 10 at 1. Petitioner’s second claim is therefore moot. Accordingly, this action must be 11 dismissed. 12 13 14 15 16 IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3) is granted. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) and this action are dismissed. The Clerk of Court must enter judgment accordingly. DATED this 16th day of May, 2011. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?