Gonzalez-Maldonado v. Ashcroft

Filing 2

ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED OR TRANSFERRED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. Petitioner is ordered to show cause, in writing and no later than June 24, 2005, why the instant petition should no t be either dismissed or transferred back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Respondent may file, no later than July 8, 2005, a response to petitioner's showing. As of July 8, 2005, the Court will take the matter under submission. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on June 2, 2005. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) Additional attachment(s) added on 6/6/2005 (tl, COURT STAFF).

Gonzalez-Maldonado v. Ashcroft

Doc. 2

Case 3:05-cv-02148-MMC

Document 2

Filed 06/02/2005

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

FILBERTO GONZALEZ-MALDONADO, Petitioner, v. ALBERTO R. GONZALES, Respondent /

No. C-05-2148 MMC ORDER DIRECTING PETITIONER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED OR TRANSFERRED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

By order filed May 18, 2005, the Ninth Circuit transferred to the district court petitioner's petition for review of the Board of Immigration's order of removal, with instructions for the district court to treat the petition as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pursuant to § 106(a) of the newly-enacted Real ID Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231 ("Real ID Act"), however, federal district courts no longer have jurisdiction to review removal orders through a § 2241 habeas petition or otherwise. Section 106(a) of the Real ID Act expressly amends 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a) to provide that United States Courts of Appeals shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of orders of removal. Consequently, it appears that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the petition. Accordingly, petitioner is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing and no later than June 24, 2005, why the instant petition should not be either dismissed or

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:05-cv-02148-MMC

Document 2

Filed 06/02/2005

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

transferred back to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Real ID Act § 106(a)(1)(B) (providing for dismissal of petition filed in district court after enactment); § 106(c) (providing for transfer of petition pending in district court prior to enactment).1 Respondent may file, no later than July 8, 2005, a response to petitioner's showing. As of July 8, 2005, the Court will take the matter under submission. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 2, 2005

/s/ Maxine M. Chesney MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

The instant petition was filed in district court on May 25, 2005, but was filed in the Ninth Circuit in 2002. 2

1