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)

Download PDF
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

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?