Aguirre-Urbina v. Asher

Filing 25

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 22 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. (JL)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 FERNANDO F. AGUIRRE-URBINA, Petitioner, v. CASE NO. 16-5935 RJB JRC ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION NATALIE ASHER, USCIS Field Office Director, Northwest Immigration Detention Center, Respondent. This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura. Dkt. 22. The Court has considered the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner’s objections, if any, and the remaining file. This case was filed on November 8, 2016, and seeks relief from Petitioner’s 2012 state court conviction of drug related charges to which he pled guilty. Dkt. 1. He asserts that his guilty plea to those charges was not valid because it was not knowing and voluntary in violation of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution due to his mental incompetence and he asserts that the state courts failed to follow procedural rules when they denied him a hearing. Dkt. 3. 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 1 1 Petitioner served his sentence on this conviction and was released from state custody on 2 September 6, 2012. Id. Petitioner is now held at the NW Detention Center in Tacoma, 3 Washington on immigration related charges. Dkt. 3. The remaining facts are contained in the 4 Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 22, at 1-4) and are adopted here. Petitioner was granted in 5 forma pauperis (“IFP”) status on November 17, 2016. Dkt. 2. 6 On April 12, 2017, the Report and Recommendation was issued, recommending that the 7 Petition be dismissed because the Petitioner is not “in custody” regarding the state court 8 convictions, so, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 to consider the petition. 9 Dkt. 22. (Although the Petition cites 28 U.S.C. § 2241, it attacks Petitioner’s state court 10 conviction, and so the Report and Recommendation properly construed the Petition under 28 11 U.S.C. § 2254). The Report and Recommendation also recommended that a certificate of 12 appealability not issue. Dkt. 22. Petitioner’s motion for an extension of time to file objections 13 was granted and the Report and Recommendation was renoted for consideration on May 12, 14 2017. Dkt. 24. Petitioner did not file objections. The Report and Recommendation is now ripe 15 for consideration. 16 Report and Recommendation. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 22) should be 17 adopted. As provided in the Report and Recommendation, Petitioner is not “in custody” 18 pursuant to a state court judgment, but is in federal custody on immigration related charges. This 19 Court does not have jurisdiction to consider his Petition under 28 U.S.C. 2254. Further, it is not 20 clear that Petitioner’s petition is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d). This case should be 21 dismissed. 22 Certificate of Appealability. The district court should grant an application for a 23 Certificate of Appealability only if the petitioner makes a “substantial showing of the denial of a 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 2 1 constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3). To obtain a Certificate of Appealability under 28 2 U.S.C. § 2253(c), a habeas petitioner must make a showing that reasonable jurists could debate 3 whether, or agree that, the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the 4 issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further. Slack v. McDaniel, 5 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). 6 As recommended in the Report and Recommendation, a Certificate of Appealability 7 should not issue in this case. Petitioner has not shown that this court has jurisdiction over this 8 case. He has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. Reasonable 9 jurists could not debate whether, or agree that, the petition should have been resolved in a 10 different manner; the issues raised are not adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further; 11 and jurists of reason would not find it debatable whether the court was correct in its rulings. A 12 Certificate of Appealability should be denied. 13 IFP on Appeal. In the event that Petitioner appeals this order, and/or appeals dismissal 14 of this case, IFP status should be denied by this court, without prejudice to Petitioner to file with 15 the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals an application to proceed IFP. 16 IT IS ORDERED that: 17  The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 22) IS ADOPTED; 18  This case IS DISMISSED; 19  The Certificate of Appealability IS DENIED; and 20  In the event that Petitioner appeals this order, and/or appeals dismissal of this 21 case, IFP status IS DENIED by this Court, without prejudice to Petitioner to file 22 with the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals an application to proceed IFP. 23 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 3 1 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to Judge J. Richard 2 Creatura, all counsel of record and to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known 3 address. 4 5 6 7 Dated this 15th day of May, 2017. A ROBERT J. BRYAN United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - 4

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?