Barragan Piedra v. Longshore

Filing 5

ORDER. Even though petitioner seeks to enjoin the July 29, 2013 immigration hearing, the Court will not consider plaintiff's motion until it has personal jurisdiction over the respondent. By Judge Philip A. Brimmer on 7/25/13. (mnfsl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Philip A. Brimmer
Civil Action No. 13-cv-01809-PAB
FRANCISCO BARRAGAN PIEDRA,
Applicant,
v.
JOHN LONGSHORE, Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement,
Respondent.

ORDER

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte on the Application for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus [Docket No. 1] filed by petitioner Francisco Barragan Piedra. The Court
has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Mr. Piedra is a non-resident alien admitted into the United States on a NonImmigrant B-2 visa sometime before 2004. Docket No. 1-5 at 1. Mr. Piedra did not
leave the United States upon the expiration of his visa on May 25, 2005. Docket No. 15 at 1. On April 7, 2013, officials from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) arrested Mr. Piedra during a raid called “Operation Safe Neighborhoods-2013.”
Docket No. 1-5 at 1. On June 10, 2013, Mr. Piedra requested a bond hearing in front of
an Immigration Judge. Docket No. 1 at 5. On July 3, 2013, the Immigration Judge held
a bond hearing and found that he did not have jurisdiction to release Mr. Piedra on bond
in light of the decision by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) in In re Rojas, 23 I. &
N. Dec. 117, 125 (B.I.A. 2001). Docket No. 1-3. Mr. Piedra has a hearing on July 29,

2013 in front of an Immigration Judge to adjudicate the merits of his application for relief
from removal proceedings. Docket No. 1-6 at 1.
In the present motion, Mr. Piedra requests that the Court order ICE to provide
him with an individualized bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) before July 29,
2013. Docket No. 1 at 2. In the alternative, Mr. Piedra requests that the Court enjoin
the Immigration Court from adjudicating his removal proceedings before a bond hearing
is held. Id.
Mr. Piedra has not served respondent. As a result of petitioner’s failure to serve
respondent, this Court has no personal jurisdiction to enter the various forms of relief
petitioner requests. See Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., 484 U.S. 97,
104 (1987) (noting that, “[b]efore a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over
a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied”); 3M
Co. v. Christian Invs., LLC, 2011 WL 3678144, at *4-6 (E.D. Va. Aug. 19, 2011) (noting
that service of process is a prerequisite to the issuance of an enforceable preliminary
injunction). Accordingly, even though petitioner seeks to enjoin the July 29, 2013
immigration hearing, the Court will not consider plaintiff’s motion until it has personal
jurisdiction over the respondent.

DATED July 25, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
s/Philip A. Brimmer
PHILIP A. BRIMMER
United States District Judge

2