Morales-Martinez v. Holder
Filing
12
ORDER Denying Petitioner's Motion for Stay of Removal and Dismissing 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Lombard Adonis Morales-Martinez. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 10/11/2014.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(sjt)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
LOMBARD ADONIS MORALESMARTINEZ,
vs.
CASE NO. 14-CV-00860-BENJMA
Petitioner,
ORDER DENYING
PETITIONER’S MOTION
FOR STAY OF REMOVAL
AND DISMISSING PETITION
14
15
16
ERIC H. HOLDER, U.S. Attorney
General,
[Docket No. 1]
Respondent.
17
18
19
Petitioner’s motion to stay removal is before the Court. (Docket No. 1.)
20
Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s challenge to his order of
21
removal and Petitioner’s request appears to be moot, the motion is DENIED and the
22
Petition is DISMISSED.
23
BACKGROUND
24
Petitioner was found ineligible for withholding of removal based on his
25
conviction for corporal injury in violation of California Penal Code § 273.5(a) and
26
ordered removed to Nicaragua on December 30, 2013. (Government’s Return in Opp’n
27
to Mot. for Stay of Removal and Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Government’s
28
Return”) [Docket No. 10], Ex. A.) On January 8, 2014, Petitioner filed a petition for
-1-
14CV00860
1
review of his removal order and motion for stay of removal with the Ninth Circuit
2
Court of Appeals. (Id., Ex. B (Ninth Circuit Case No. 14-70067).)1
3
On January 31, 2014, Petitioner filed a supplemental document in support of his
4
motion for stay in which he advised the Ninth Circuit that he was seeking post-
5
conviction relief in California state court alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
6
(Id., Ex. C.) On March 11, 2014, the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s motion. (Id.,
7
Ex. D.) On March 26, 2014, the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s motion for
8
reconsideration of the denial of the motion for stay of removal. (Id., Ex. E.) On May
9
9, 2014, Petitioner filed a renewed emergency stay of removal in the Ninth Circuit,
10
requesting a stay while he pursued post-conviction relief in California state court. (Id.,
11
Ex. F.) On May 15, 2014, the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s emergency motion for
12
a stay of removal. (Id., Ex. G.) Although the Ninth Circuit denied Petitioner’s motions
13
to stay his removal, his case proceeded and on October 8, 2014, the Ninth Circuit
14
granted the Government’s unopposed motion to remand the matter to the Board of
15
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).
16
On April 9, 2014, Petitioner filed the present Motion for Stay of Removal,
17
submitted as a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Docket No. 1.)
18
On May 8 and 13, 2014, Petitioner filed supplemental documents requesting an
19
emergency stay of his removal pending the resolution of his state court proceedings.
20
(Docket Nos. 7, 9.)
DISCUSSION
21
22
Judicial review of removal orders is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1252, as amended
23
by the REAL ID Act of 2005. Under the REAL ID Act, any challenge to Petitioner’s
24
removal order must be directed to the applicable courts of appeals.
25
///
26
///
27
Petitioner filed a second petition for review with the Ninth Circuit that was
ultimately dismissed on May 15, 2014 for failure to prosecute. (Government’s Return,
Ex. J (Ninth Circuit Case No. 14-70953).)
1
28
-2-
14CV00860
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or nonstatutory),
including section 2241 of Title 28, [. . .] a petition for review filed with an
appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this section shall be the sole
and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal entered or
issued under any provision of this chapter, except as provided in subsection
(e) of this section. For purposes of this chapter, in every provision that limits
or eliminates judicial review or jurisdiction to review, the terms ‘judicial
review’ and ‘jurisdiction to review’ include habeas corpus review pursuant to
section 2241 of Title 28.
1
2
3
4
5
6
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (emphasis added); see also Puri v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1038,
7
1041 (9th Cir. 2006) (“The REAL ID Act . . . eliminated district court habeas corpus
8
jurisdiction over orders of removal and vested jurisdiction to review such orders
9
exclusively in the courts of appeal.”).
“Post-REAL ID Act cases considering the applicability of § 1252 have
10
11
distinguished between challenges to orders of removal and challenges that arise
12
independently.” Singh v. Gonzales, 499 F.3d 969, 978 (9th Cir. 2007). However,
13
the district court lacks jurisdiction over any challenge that “is wholly intertwined
14
with the merits of [the] removal order.” Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1211 (9th
15
Cir. 2011) (holding that the petitioner’s habeas petition did nothing more than
16
attack the immigration judge’s removal order and was wholly intertwined with the
17
merits of his removal order).
Here, Petitioner’s motion to stay his removal seeks to halt the final order of
18
19
removal while he attempts to overturn the state conviction that formed the basis for
20
his removal. This is both an attempt to halt and a challenge to the final order of
21
removal that this Court does not have jurisdiction to consider. Alternatively, it
22
appears Petitioner’s request may be moot because the Ninth Circuit has remanded
23
his appeal to the BIA.
24
The Court could transfer this case to the Ninth Circuit, however, in light of
25
the Ninth Circuit’s previous orders denying the relief Petitioner seeks here and its
26
recent remand of the case to the BIA, transfer is not appropriate.
27
///
28
///
-3-
14CV00860
CONCLUSION
1
2
3
4
Petitioner’s request for stay of removal is DENIED and the Petition is
DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
DATED: October 11, 2014
7
8
Hon. Roger T. Benitez
United States District Judge
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-4-
14CV00860
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?