Khatkar v. CDCR

Filing 56

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/19/19 DENYING 55 Motion to Stay without prejudice to refiling in a new action in the proper court naming the proper respondent. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

NARINDER SINGH KHATKARH,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:14-cv-00079-KJM-KJN P

Petitioner,
v.

ORDER

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION,
Respondent.

17
18

Earlier on the date this order is being filed, June 19, 2019, petitioner moved for an

19

emergency order staying petitioner’s impending removal proceedings. ECF No. 55. Petitioner

20

currently is detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and has been subject to

21

removal proceedings since serving a three-year state sentence. While petitioner is housed at Yuba

22

County Jail he is in federal immigration custody, awaiting deportation “in a matter of days.” ECF

23

No. 55-1 at ¶¶ 4–5. Petitioner contends this court can act on his request because, he says, he is

24

exempt from the jurisdictional bar imposed on district courts by the REAL ID Act of 2005,

25

8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5), in that he seeks injunctive relief based on a collateral matter; that collateral

26

matter is his underlying state conviction challenged by his pending habeas petition, and not based

27

on any aspect of the removal proceedings themselves. ECF No. 55 at 5–9. As explained below,

28

the court is not persuaded it has jurisdiction. The motion is DENIED.
1

1

A district court may stay proceedings in the exercise of its authority to “control the

2

disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and

3

for [the] litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248 (1936). A stay is discretionary and the

4

“party requesting a stay bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of

5

that discretion.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433-34 (2009). As petitioner notes, motions to

6

stay are analogous to requests for preliminary injunctive relief, and the analysis is similar. Id. at

7

426 (considering (1) likelihood of success on the merits, (2) likelihood of irreparable harm,

8

(3) potential impairment to opposing party’s interest in the proceedings, and (4) public interest

9

considerations). Here, the court does not reach these factors, because it does not have

10
11

jurisdiction to provide the relief petitioner seeks.
Petitioner specifically “asks this court to temporarily stay [] removal

12

[proceedings].” ECF No. 55 at 11. As noted, however, district courts generally are divested of

13

jurisdiction over removal proceedings, with only narrow exceptions. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5) &

14

1252(e). Petitioner does not rely on any exception set forth in the federal statute, however, but

15

appears to rely solely on the fact of his federal habeas petition through which he seeks to vacate

16

the prior state criminal conviction on which his removal is based. ECF No. 55 at 5–9. Even

17

assuming without deciding that success on petitioner’s habeas petition would improve the posture

18

of any case he has before immigration authorities, the court in this habeas matter brought against

19

petitioner’s state custodian would have the power only to grant the writ directed to that custodian,

20

if it ultimately decides the matter in petitioner’s favor. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435

21

(2004) (proper respondent to a habeas petition is one who possesses “the power to produce the

22

body of such party before the court or judge” (quoting Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 574

23

(1885)). But it is not the state custodian’s action that petitioner seeks to stay in the instant

24

motion; rather he seeks to stay action he says ICE will take shortly. Because ICE is not a party to

25

this action, the court does not appear to have jurisdiction to issue an order directing ICE to take

26

any particular action with respect to petitioner. Cf. Illinois v. U.S. Dep’t of Health and Human

27

Servs., 772 F.2d 329, 332 (7th Cir. 1985) (under circumstances not present here, federal

28

preliminary injunction rule allows “that defendants may not nullify a decree by carrying out
2

1

prohibited acts through aiders and abettors, although they were not parties to the original

2

proceeding.” (citation omitted); rule codifies “common-law rule allowing a non-party to be held

3

in contempt for violating the terms of an injunction when a non-party is legally identified with the

4

defendant or when the non-party aids or abets a violation of an injunction.” (citation omitted)).

5

Even if ICE were a party, the court doubts it would have jurisdiction to act given the

6

jurisdictional limits set by the REAL ID Act. Petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating

7

otherwise.

8
9

Although the court has certain powers authorized by the All Writs Act, see 28
U.S.C. § 1651, the court has not issued any orders in this matter whose integrity must be

10

protected by the issuance of the requested stay. Nat’l Org. for the Reform of Marijuana Laws v.

11

Mullen, 828 F.2d 536, 544 (9th Cir. 1987) (recognized application of All Writs Act is “issuance

12

of orders necessary to ensure the integrity of orders previously issued”) (citation omitted)).

13

The court’s decision here does not in any way revisit the court’s prior findings

14

regarding the redressability of petitioner’s underlying habeas petition, which remains pending

15

before the court. See ECF No. 48 (addressing respondent’s redressability arguments).

16

For these reasons, petitioner’s motion for emergency stay of removal proceedings

17

is DENIED, without prejudice to refiling in a new action in the proper court naming the proper

18

respondent.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 19, 2019.

21
22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
3