Rosas Rosas v. Becerra

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 San Francisco Division 11 OLIVER ROSAS ROSAS, Case No. 23-cv-04058-LB 12 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 13 v. Re: ECF No. 1 14 MOISES BECERRA, et al., 15 Respondents. [16] 17 Petitioner Oliver Rosas Rosas is a citizen of Mexico and has been detained by Immigration & 18 Customs Enforcement (ICE).1 He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 19 § 2241 to challenge his detention. This order requires the respondents to respond to the petition. 20 The court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review 21 a bond hearing determination for constitutional claims and legal error. Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 22 1196 , 1200–01 (9th Cir. 2011). “[A]lthough the Attorney General’s discretionary judgment . . . 23 shall not be subject to review, claims that the discretionary process itself was constitutionally 24 flawed are cognizable[.]” Id. at 1202. Because the petitioner claims that he has been in prolonged 25 detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (c) without a bond hearing, the court has jurisdiction. Gonzalez v. [27] 1 Pet. – ECF No. 1. Citations refer to material in the Electronic Case File (ECF); pinpoint citations are 1 || Bonnar, No. 18-CV-05321-JSC, 2019 WL 330906 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2019). A district 2 || court must “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ 3 should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained 4 is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243 . 5 Upon review of the petition, the court cannot say that the claims are patently without merit. 6 || The respondents must respond to those claims. 7 The court orders the United States to respond by September 7, 2023 (in the form of an answer 8 || under Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases), showing cause why a writ of habeas 9 || corpus should not be issued. The petitioner’s traverse is due by September 21, 2023. 10 The parties can alter this schedule by stipulation, and if they have disagreements, can submit a 11 || joint statement with those disagreements within seven day from the date of this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: August 18, 2023 LAE eT 3 15 LAUREL BEELER nited States Magistrate Judge [16] Z 18