court may take judicial notice of 28 |! “documents on file in federal or state courts”
How later courts described this case
- court may take judicial notice of 28 |! “documents on file in federal or state courts”
- affirming district court’s 21 || application of Habeas Rule 4 to dismiss Section 2241 petition
- recognizing transfer to be appropriate when “the transferee court 24 || could have exercised jurisdiction at the time the action was filed’
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
]
3
5
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.
17
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 12-
13 | 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
10
11
12 || Presented by;
13 j iT +
MARIA RO
15 | UNITED-STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
28