Guzman-Vasquez v. Holder et al

Filing 7

ORDER granting Petitioner's 5 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Clerk shall file the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee. Based on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Court dismisses the Petition without prejudice. Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 6/25/2014. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JULIO ALEXANDER GUZMANVASQUEZ,

12
13
14
15

Petitioner,

Case No. 14-cv-01421-BAS(BLM)
ORDER:
(1) GRANTING IN FORMA
PAUPERIS APPLICATION;
AND

v.
ERIC HOLDER, JR., et al.,

(2) DISMISSING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS WITHOUT
PREJUDICE

Respondents.

16
17
18
19

Petitioner, a detainee in the custody of the Department of Homeland

20

Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, proceeding pro se, has

21

filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241

22

(“Petition”). Petitioner filed his Petition on June 10, 2014, contemporaneously with

23

motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and for a stay of removal. (ECF

24

Nos. 1 (“Pet.”), 2-3.) On June 11, 2014, the Court denied Petitioner’s request to

25

proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed the case without prejudice. (ECF No. 4.)

26

On June 20, 2014, Petitioner filed a new in forma pauperis application. (ECF No.

27

5.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to

28

proceed in forma pauperis, and DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice.
–1–

14cv01421

1

I.

BACKGROUND

2

Petitioner is a citizen of Guatemala and was previously a legal permanent

3

resident of the United States. (Pet. at ¶ 17.) Pursuant to the Immigration and

4

Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. § 237(a)(2)(A)(iii), Petitioner was ordered

5

removed as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. (Id. at ¶¶ 17-18.) Petitioner

6

waived appeal and was deported. (Id. at ¶ 18.) Petitioner reentered the United

7

States after deportation and was arrested and charged with illegal re-entry. (Id. at ¶

8

19.) Petitioner sought to reopen removal proceedings in the Immigration Court, but

9

his motion was denied. (Id.) Petitioner’s appeal of the denial to the Board of

10

Immigration Appeals was dismissed. (Id. at ¶ 20.) Petitioner’s Ninth Circuit

11

appeal is currently pending. (Id.) Before this Court, Petitioner seeks restoration of

12

his status as a lawful permanent resident and cancellation of removal.

13

II.

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

14

On June 20, 2014, Petitioner filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis

15

which reflects that he has no funds in his trust account at the facility in which he is

16

presently confined. (ECF No. 5.) Petitioner cannot afford the $5.00 filing fee.

17

Thus, the Court grants Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.

18

III.

DISMISSAL FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. “Without jurisdiction the

19
20

court cannot proceed at all in any cause.”

21

Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) (citation omitted).

22

courts are under a continuing duty to confirm their jurisdictional power and are

23

even “obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to the existence of

24

[its] jurisdiction.” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274,

25

278 (1977).

26

///

27

///

28

///
–2–

Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better
Accordingly, federal

14cv01421

This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the Petition. Title 8, section

1
2

1252, provides as follows:

5

…no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on
behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney
General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute
removal orders against any alien under this Act.

6

8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). This provision was created to “eliminate[] district court habeas

7

corpus jurisdiction over orders of removal and vest[] jurisdiction to review such

8

orders exclusively in the courts of appeals.” Puri v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1038, 1041

9

(9th Cir. 2006) (citing Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 928-929 (9th Cir.

10

2005)). “[A] petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals . . . shall

11

be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal.” 8

12

U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5); see also Lin v. Gonzales, 473 F.3d 979, 981 n. 1 (9th Cir.

13

2007) (citing Azarte v. Ashcroft, 394 F.3d 1278, 1281 (9th Cir. 2005) (“The denial

14

of a motion to reopen falls within our jurisdiction over final orders of removal (not

15

issued in absentia) under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), provided that the denial has been

16

separately appealed.”)); Sarmadi v. INS, 121 F.3d 1319, 1321-22 (9th Cir. 1997).

17

Petitioner’s remedy is to file a petition for review in the United States Court of

18

Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which he has already done. See Pet. at ¶ 20; Case

19

No. 14-70488.1

20

IV.

3
4

CONCLUSION & ORDER

21

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s application to proceed in

22

forma pauperis. The Clerk of the Court shall file the Petition for Writ of Habeas

23

Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee.
However, based on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court

24
25

DISMISSES the Petition without prejudice.

The Clerk of Court shall enter

26
27
28

1

See Guzman-Vazquez v. Holder, Case No. 14-cv-1471-MMA(BLM) (S.D.
Cal.) (dismissing substantially similar petition filed by Petitioner seeking the same
relief sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction).
–3–

14cv01421

1
2

judgment accordingly.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4

DATED: June 25, 2014

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

14cv01421