Jesus Alfredo Ayala Escalante v. Eric Holder

Filing 12

ORDER ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 is hereby DENIED. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (gk)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11
12
13
14
15
16
17

)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
ERIC HOLDER,
)
)
Respondent.
)
________________________________ )
)
JESUS ALFREDO AYALA
ESCALANTE,

No. CV 12-10569-CAS
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS (Docket #1, filed December
10, 2012)

18
19

I.

INTRODUCTION
On December 3, 2012, Magistrate Judge Wilner issued an order finding that

20
21

petitioner Jesus Alfredo Ayala Escalante is extraditable to Mexico to face prosecution

22

for kidnapping. In the Matter of the Extradition of Jesus Alfredo Ayala Escalante, Case

23

No. CV 12-4617 CAS-MRW, Dkt. #70 (C.D. Cal. 2012) (“Extradition Order”). On

24

December 10, 2012, petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging

25

this order, and filed a brief in support of his petition on February 20, 2013. On March

26

25, 2013, the government filed an opposition. No reply has been filed. After

27

considering the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.

28

///

1

II.

2

BACKGROUND
The kidnapping underlying the instant extradition proceedings occurred on July

3

18, 1996 in Guasave, Mexico. Four armed men approached the victim, identified as

4

“RVA,” and abducted him while he was standing beside a road. One of RVA’s

5

employees, identified as “JSA,” witnessed the kidnapping. The kidnappers then took

6

RVA to a stash house, where Mexican law enforcement authorities found him days later.

7

One kidnapper was arrested at the scene.

8
9

Shortly after RVA’s rescue, Mexican authorities showed both RVA and JSA a
voter registration card that displayed petitioner’s photo. The card had been found at the

10

stash house. Both men identified petitioner as one of the kidnappers. Mexican

11

authorities then sought an arrest warrant from the Mexican state of Sinaloa, but were

12

unable to prosecute petitioner because he had moved to the United States.

13

Approximately fifteen years after the first identification, both RVA and JSA were

14

shown six-pack photo arrays including petitioner’s picture, and each witness again

15

identified petitioner as one of the kidnappers.

16

On February 16, 2012, petitioner was arrested on a provisional extradition arrest

17

warrant. On May 25, 2012, the government filed a request to extradite petitioner to

18

Mexico. On November 9 and November 30, 2012, Magistrate Judge Wilner held

19

evidentiary hearings regarding the request for extradition, and on December 3, 2012,

20

Magistrate Judge Wilner certified petitioner for extradition.

21

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

22

“The scope of the district court’s review of a magistrate’s extradition order on a

23

petition for writ of habeas corpus is limited to whether the magistrate had jurisdiction,

24

whether the offence [sic] charged is within the treaty and, by a somewhat liberal

25

extension, whether there was any evidence warranting the finding that there was

26

reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty.” Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 790

27

(9th Cir. 1986) (citing Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311, 312 (1924)). Here, the only

28

2

1

disputed issue is whether there is sufficient evidence supporting the finding that there is

2

reason to believe petitioner was one of RVA’s kidnappers. See Extradition Order at 3 –

3

4.

4

Sufficient evidence exists to certify an individual for extradition if the government

5

presents evidence that “demonstrate[s] probable cause to believe that the accused

6

committed the crime charged.” Zanzanian v. U.S., 729 F.2d 624, 626 (9th Cir. 1984).

7

“[R]eview of the sufficiency of evidence in a habeas corpus proceeding is limited;

8

[courts] must uphold the magistrate’s probable cause finding if there is any competent

9

evidence in the record to support it.” Then v. Melendez, 92 F.3d 851, 854 (9th Cir.

10

1996).

11

IV.

12

ANALYSIS
The only question before the Court is whether there is competent evidence in the

13

record below to support the finding that probable cause exists to conclude that petitioner

14

committed the alleged kidnapping. The decision below concluded that probable cause

15

exists based on the eyewitness identifications in 1996 and 2011, and the fact that

16

petitioner’s voter identification card was found at the stash house. Extradition Order at 4

17

– 5.

18

Under the applicable law governing review of an extradition order, the decision

19

below should not be overturned. Since there is no dispute that RVA was kidnapped, the

20

existence of probable cause turns on whether petitioner can be identified as one of the

21

assailants. The decision below found that RVA and JSA’s eyewitness identifications

22

provide probable cause to identify petitioner as one of the assailants, and there is no

23

basis for finding that this conclusion was in error. First, the Court cannot revisit the

24

finding that these identifications are credible, because “[t]he credibility of the reported

25

identification is a matter committed to the magistrate and is not reviewable on habeas

26

corpus.” Manta v. Chertoff, 518 F.3d 1134, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008). Second, Ninth Circuit

27

case law provides that “[a]n identification based on a single photograph may be

28

3

1

competent evidence of identity in an extradition proceeding.” Id.; see also Quinn v.

2

Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 815 (9th Cir. 1996) (“An identification does not fail to

3

constitute competent evidence merely because the required United States procedures for

4

admissibility of the identification at trial were not followed.”). Here, if anything, the

5

evidence establishing identity is stronger than an identification based on a single

6

photograph. In addition to the identifications given around the time of the kidnapping,

7

petitioner’s voter identification card was found at the stash house, and the eyewitnesses

8

identified petitioner in a six-pack photo array fifteen years after originally identifying

9

him from a single photo. Accordingly, there was competent evidence underlying the

10

finding of probable cause in the decision below, and therefore the petition should be

11

denied.

12

V.

13
14
15
16

CONCLUSION
In accordance with the foregoing, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is hereby

DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 9, 2013

17

_______________________

18

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4