Camarillo-Chagoya v. Hogsten
Filing
21
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: the court OVERRULES petitioner's objections to Magistrate Judge Eifert's PF&R. The Court ADOPTS the PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION, DENIES petitioner's 1 APPLICATION to proceed without prepayment of fees, DENIES petitioner's 2 PETITION for a writ of habeas corpus, and DISMISSES this matter from the court's active docket. Signed by Judge David A. Faber on 11/7/2014. (cc: counsel of record and petitioner, pro se) (mjp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA
AT BLUEFIELD
MANUEL CAMARILLO-CHAGOYA,
Petitioner,
v.
Civil Action No: 1:13-16790
KAREN F. HOGSTEN,
Warden
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the court are petitioner’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. No. 1), and petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(Doc. No. 2).
By Standing Order, this matter was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert for submission of proposed
findings and recommendations for disposition pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
(Doc. No. 4).
The magistrate judge
submitted her proposed findings and recommendations (“PF&R”) on
September 11, 2014.
(Doc. No. 18).
In the PF&R, Magistrate
Judge Eifert recommended that the court deny petitioner’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis and deny his petition
for a writ of habeas corpus.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b),
petitioner was allotted fourteen days, plus three mailing days,
1
in which to file any objections to the PF&R.
Petitioner timely
filed objections to the PF&R on September 26, 2014.
19).
(Doc. No.
Because petitioner’s objections are without merit, the
court dismisses his petition.
I.
Background
On October 3, 2011, petitioner was convicted in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas for
violating 8 U.S.C. §§ 1326(a) and (b)(2), namely, Reentry by an
Alien into the United States Without the Consent of the Attorney
General of the United States.
(Doc. No. 2 at 1).
Petitioner
argues that his conviction was invalid and that Warden Hogsten’s
“defacto acceptance” of this conviction unlawfully subjects him
to physical constraint in violation of the Due Process Clause of
the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
(Doc.
No. 2 at 7; Doc. No. 3 at 1–2).
Specifically, petitioner alleges that the United States
District Court for the Western District of Arkansas lacked
jurisdiction to adjudicate his criminal case under the
“political question doctrine.”
(Doc. No. 3 at 1, 3).
Petitioner argues that no federal court possesses the necessary
authorization to resolve immigration matters because such
matters are “so exclusively entrusted to the political branches
of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or
interference.”
(Doc. No. 3 at 7).
2
As a result, the “very
initiation of the proceedings against petitioner in the District
Court for the Western District of Arkansas thus operated to deny
him due process of law.”
(Doc. No. 3 at 8).
Consequently,
petitioner asks the court “to vacate and set aside the judgment
in this case and grant [his] immediate release.”
(Doc. No. 2 at
8).
The magistrate judge concluded that petitioner’s claims
addressed the validity of his conviction, and, as a result, his
petition should fall under § 2255, rather than § 2241.
However,
petitioner did not agree to the proposed recharacterization of
his petition and requested that the court rule on his petition
pursuant to § 2241.
(Doc. No. 16).
The magistrate judge
complied and, in the PF&R, concluded that petitioner is not
entitled to relief under § 2241 because he did not show that a
remedy under § 2255 is inadequate or ineffective under §
2255(e), nor did he demonstrate that the savings clause of §
2241 applies to his case.
As a result, the magistrate judge
recommended that this court dismiss petitioner’s § 2241
petition.
II.
Petitioner’s Objections to the PF&R
Initially, petitioner begins his objections by making a
general objection to the PF&R’s findings.
This argument “do[es]
not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate’s
proposed findings and recommendations” because such an objection
3
is “general and conclusory.”
47 (4th Cir. 1982).
Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44,
As a result, a court need not conduct a de
novo review of such an objection.
Id.
However, having reviewed the record and petitioner’s
objections in their entirety, the court concludes that his
objections lack merit.
Primarily, petitioner objects to the
magistrate judge’s conclusion that his petition constituted “a
collateral attack on the validity of his conviction.”
18 at 3).
(Doc. No.
However, in the same sentence, petitioner argues that
he “is being unlawfully held to answer for an infamous crime.”
(Doc. No. 19 at 1).
Petitioner’s own words contradict his
argument, and, as a result, the court must overrule his
objection.
The remainder of petitioner’s contentions string together
quotations from a number of cases and, from what the court can
discern, are in furtherance of petitioner’s argument that he has
been denied due process rights.
However, these arguments do not
object to any of the magistrate judge’s conclusions in the PF&R.
Instead, petitioner presents the same arguments that he made in
his initial filings.
The magistrate judge considered these
arguments when concluding that § 2241 does not afford petitioner
any relief and petitioner gives the court no reason to reexamine
his arguments.
Consequently, the court must overrule
petitioner’s objections.
4
III. Conclusion
Accordingly, the court OVERRULES petitioner’s objections to
Magistrate Judge Eifert’s PF&R.
The court adopts the factual
and legal analysis contained within the PF&R, DENIES
petitioner’s application to proceed without prepayment of fees,
(Doc. No. 1), DENIES petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus, (Doc. No. 2), and DISMISSES this matter from the court’s
active docket.
The court has additionally considered whether to grant a
certificate of appealability.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
A
certificate will not be granted unless there is “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
2253(c)(2).
Id. §
The standard is satisfied only upon a showing that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by this court is debatable or wrong and
that any dispositive procedural ruling is likewise debatable.
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (2003); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,
683–84 (4th Cir. 2001).
The court concludes that the governing
standard is not satisfied in this instance.
court DENIES a certificate of appealability.
5
Accordingly, the
The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this Memorandum
Opinion and Order to counsel of record and to petitioner, pro
se.
IT IS SO ORDERED on this 7th day of November, 2014.
ENTER:
David A. Faber
Senior United States District Judge
6
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?