Nigel Nicholas Douglas v. William P. Barr

] [7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 . 11 | NIGEL NICHOLAS DOUGLAS, Case No. 2:19-cv-10035-AB-MAA Penhoner, ORDER SUMMARILY DISMISSING y. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 14 CORPUS 15 WILLIAM P. BARR, United States Attorney General, Respondent. [18] I. INTRODUCTION 20 On November 22, 2019, Petitioner Nigel Nicholas Douglas, acting pro se, 21 || filed a document entitled “Motion for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 21 USC 22 || 2241For Emergency Stay of Removal, Temporary Restraining Order, and 23 || Preliminary Injunction Under Ninth Circuit General Order Cal. 6.4(c)(1).” 24 || (“Petition,” ECF No. 1.) The Court construes the Petition as a petition for writ of 25 || habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Section 2241”). Petitioner seeks a 26 || stay of his removal from the United States pending the filing and adjudication of his 27 || motion to reopen immigration proceedings. (See Petition at 1.) The Petition also 28 || requests a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction staying I || Petitioner’s removal from the United States until he is afforded the opportunity to 2 |) file a motion to reopen his immigration case. (See id. at 23 .) On November 23, 3 || 2019, Respondent filed an opposition to the Petition and its request for preliminary 4 || injunctive relief. (“Opposition,” ECF No. 3.) Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules 5 || Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Habeas 6 || Rules”) and the Court’s obligation to consider its own jurisdiction sua sponte, the 7 || Petition must be dismissed. 9} Il BACKGROUND 10 Petitioner is a citizen of Guyana who presently is detained at the Pulaski 11 || County Detention Center in Ullin, Illinois. (Petition at 13, 26; Declaration of Mike 12 || Cuevas {ff 3, 8 (“Cuevas Decl.,” ECF No. 3-1); Declaration of Joanne Osinoff, 13 | Exhibit 1, at 5 “Osinoff Decl.,” ECF No. 3-2); see also Petition at 27 (bearing 14 || return address of Pulaski County Detention Center).) On February 27, 2018, an 15 || Immigration Judge sitting in Los Angeles ordered Petitioner to be removed from 16 || the United States. (Petition at 2-3.) On September 20, 2018, the Board of 17 || Immigration Appeals affirmed the decision and dismissed Petitioner’s appeal. □□□□ 18 || at 3.) Petitioner then filed a petition for review in the Ninth Circuit Court of 19 Appeals: (/d.) The petition for review remains pending.' (See generally Osinoff 20 || Decl., Exhibit 1.) 21 Petitioner seeks from this district court a stay of his removal pending the 22 || filing and adjudication of his motion to reopen his immigration proceedings. 23 || (Petition at 1.) He avers that an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) [24] 25 || ' The Court takes judicial notice of the docket in the Ninth Circuit case. See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (“The court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to 26 || reasonable dispute because it . . . can be accurately and readily determined from 27 || Sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”); Harris v. County of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2012) (court may take judicial notice of 28 |! “documents on file in federal or state courts”). 1 || deportation officer at the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations Chicago Field 2 || Office told him that the government sought to deport him “as soon as it obtains his 3 || travel documents from his country.” (/d. at 4.) Petitioner contends, however, that 4 || his removal should be stayed so that he may file a motion to reopen the 5 || immigration proceedings. (See id.) Though the motion to reopen is not before this 6 || Court, Petitioner contends that it is “based on new evidence of Guyana’s failure to 7 || comply with its International reporting obligations and changed Country 8 || conditions.” (/d. at 4.) Petitioner argues that he effectively will be denied due 9 || process if he is removed before he has the opportunity to litigate his motion to 10 || reopen. (See, e.g., id. at 5,9, 11-12.) Petitioner also seeks a temporary restraining 11 | order and preliminary injunction precluding the government from effecting his 12 || removal for ninety days. (See id. at 4, 23.) [13] 14} IN. DISCUSSION 15 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 16 || District Courts (“Habeas Rules”) requires summary dismissal of a petition “[i]f it 17 || plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 18 || entitled to relief in the district court.” See also Habeas Rule 1(b) (permitting 19 || district courts to apply Habeas Rules to Section 2241 habeas proceedings); Lane v. 20 || Feather, 584 F. App’x 843, 843 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court’s 21 || application of Habeas Rule 4 to dismiss Section 2241 petition). Additionally, a 22 || federal court is obligated to consider sua sponte whether it has jurisdiction over a 23 || Section 2241 petition. See Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1075 (9th Cir. 24 || 2006). Here, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the Petition, which subjects this 25 || action to summary dismissal. 26 Section 2241 authorizes federal courts to grant writs of habeas corpus 27 || “within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (a). The Supreme Court 28 || has emphasized that the writ is “issuable only in the district of confinement.” 1 || Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 442 (2004) (citation and quotation marks 2 || omitted). In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court reviewed the legislative 3 || intent animating the jurisdiction limitation in Section 2241(a), observed that the 4 || statutory structure of Section 2241 indicated that habeas proceedings generally 5 || should proceed in the district of confinement, and rejected the petitioner’s argumen 6 || that jurisdiction lies “in any district in which the respondent is amenable to service 7 || of process.” Id. at 442-44 ; accord Carbo v. United States, 364 U.S. 611 , 617 8 || (1961) (“The debates in Congress indicate that it was thought inconvenient, 9 || potentially embarrassing, certainly expensive and on the whole quite unnecessary t 10 || provide every judge anywhere with authority to issue the Great Writ on behalf of 11 || applicants far distantly removed from the courts whereon they sat.”). 12 Respondent asserts that “[t]his principle applies with full force to petitioners 13 || who are challenging removal-related detention.” (Opposition at 4.) The Court 14 || agrees. Although the Supreme Court has not expressly extended the reasoning of 15 || Padilla to habeas petitions by aliens detained pending deportation who seek a stay 16 | of removal proceedings, see Padilla, 542 U.S. at 435 n.8, 442-44, several district 17 || courts in this circuit have applied Padilla to such petitions. See, e.g., Davis v. DHS 18 || No. 2:18-cv-3218 DB P, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89172 , at *9, 2019 WL 2267053 , 19 | at *4 (E.D. Cal. May 28, 2019) (applying Padilla), adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20 || 178004, 2019 WL 5091143 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 13, 2019); Nibikora v. Sessions, No. 21 || SACV 18-0305-GW(KS), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45829 , at *8 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 22 || 2018) (same).? : * In an opinion predating Padilla, a Ninth Circuit panel noted that requiring an 24 || immigration detainee to name her immediate physical custodian as a habeas 25 || tespondent was not “practical or in the interests of justice,” reasoning: Immigration detainees are frequently transferred among federal, state, 26 and local institutions across the country. By the time a district court 27 judge is able to consider a habeas petition filed in her court, the petitioner may already have been moved out of the court’s territorial 28 jurisdiction, thereby necessitating time-consuming transfer or dismissal 1 Here, Petitioner is in federal custody in Ullin, Illinois, which is within the 2 || territorial jurisdiction of the Southern District of I!linois—not the Central District 3 || of California. (See Petition at 13, 27; Cuevas Decl. § 8; Osinoff Decl., Exhibit 1, al 4 || 5.) This Court is not authorized to issue a writ of habeas corpus directed outside its 5 || territorial jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (a); Padilla, 542 U.S. at 442 . 6 Petitioner asserts this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate his Petition □□□□□□ 7 || his initial removal proceedings were conducted in a federal immigration court in 8 || this district. (See Petition at 12; accord id. at 2-3 (noting that an Immigration □□□□ 9 || sitting in Los Angeles ordered Petitioner to be removed); Cuevas Decl. { 5 (same).) 10 || He argues that “he cannot control where he will be held next and which District 11 || Court he will have to file his motion to reopen with,” given that he has been 12 || relocated eight times since he entered federal custody in July 2019. (Petition at 1213 | 13.) However, the location of Petitioner’s initial removal proceedings, and the 14 || location of the immigration court in which Petitioner hypothetically may file his 15 || motion to reopen, has no bearing on whether this Court may issue the great writ to 16 || reach outside the territorial borders of this district. See Davis, 2019 U.S. Dist. 17 || LEXIS 89172, at *9, 2019 WL 2267053 , at *4 (declining to entertain habeas 18 || petition seeking stay of removal in part because the petitioner was confined outside 19 || ° _ of the petition if the immediate custodian rule is strictly applied. If 20 detainees were permitted only to file their habeas petitions against their immediate physical custodian, and hence, under personal jurisdiction rules could only file in the district in which they were detained (so that 22 their custodian would be within reach of the court’s process,) 3 expedient resolution of their habeas claims would be greatly hampered. Armentero v. INS, 340 F.3d 1058, 1069 (9th Cir. 2003). Shortly after Padilla was 24 || decided, the Ninth Circuit withdrew the opinion, Armentero v. INS, 382 F.3d 1153 , 25 || 1153 (9th Cir. 2004), and dismissed the appeal on other grounds, Armentero v. INS, 412 F.3d 1088, 1088 (9th Cir. 2005). The Court defers to the reasoning in Padilla 26 || and respectfully declines to adopt the reasoning in the withdrawn Armentero 27 || Opinion. Contra Singh v. Barr, No. CV-19-05386-PHX-JJT (DMF), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 187213 , at *3-4 (D. Ariz. Oct. 28, 2019) (declining to transfer venue 28 || to district of petitioner’s present confinement, citing Armentero, 340 F.3d at 1069 ). 1 || the jurisdiction of the district court); Wairimu v. Dir., Dep’t of Homeland Sec., No. 2 || 19-cv-174-BTM-MDD, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19487 , at *4-6, 2019 WL 460561 , 3 | at *2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2019) (noting the district of confinement is the preferable 4 | forum for the adjudication of a petition for a stay of removal proceedings); 5 || Nibikora, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45829 , at *8 (noting proper court for habeas 6 || petition requesting stay of removal would be the district in which the petitioner was 7 || confined). 8 Respondent asserts that, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1252 , this Court also lacks 9 || jurisdiction to enjoin the government from enforcing removal orders. (Opposition 10 | at 4-7.) Acknowledging the split in authority as to this question, the Court 11 || expressly declines to decide whether any federal district court would have 12 || jurisdiction to entertain the due process claim in the Petition. See Diaz-Amezcua v. 13 || Barr, No. C19-0001-BJR-MAT, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 153840 , at *8-9, 2019 WL 14 || 4261178, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 26, 2019) (acknowledging that the “Ninth 15 || Circuit . . . has not addressed . . . whether district courts have jurisdiction to stay a 16 || noncitizen’s removal pending resolution of a motion to reopen,” and collecting 17 || district court cases on either side of the issue), adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18 | 153244, 2019 WL 4261178 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 9, 2019). For this reason, the Court 19 || declines to exercise its discretion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631 to transfer the action 20 || to United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, the federal 21 || district court with territorial jurisdiction over Pulaski County, Illinois, where 22 || Petitioner presently is detained. See Cruz-Aguilera y. INS, 245 F.3d 1070 , 1074 23 || (9th Cir. 2001) (recognizing transfer to be appropriate when “the transferee court 24 || could have exercised jurisdiction at the time the action was filed’). [25] 26 | IV. CONCLUSION 27 The Petition is dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. 28 || Judgment shall be entered accordingly. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over | || the Petition, Petitioner’s request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary 2 || injunction is denied. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 | DATED: 11/25/2019 7 J oh 8 AN®RE BIROTTE JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [11] 12 || Presented by; 13 j iT + MARIA RO 15 | UNITED-STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE