taking judicial notice of an underlying case's docket
How later courts described this case
- taking judicial notice of an underlying case's docket
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MANNA MASSAQUOI,
Petitioner, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-01899
v.
(MEHALCHICK, M.J.)
LEONARD J. ODDO, et al.,
Respondents.
MEMORANDUM
This is a habeas corpus proceeding initiated by Manna Massaquoi (“Petitioner”), who
represents that he is a citizen of Liberia. (Doc. 1, at 3). Presently before the Court are two
emergency motions filed by Petitioner, seeking a stay of his removal from the United States
and a request to reopen his order of removal sua sponte. (Doc. 2; Doc. 3). Because this Court
lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief that the Petitioner seeks in these motions, the motions will
be DENIED. (Doc. 2; Doc. 3).
I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 30, 2022, Petitioner initiated this habeas corpus proceeding, challenging
his immigration detention and arguing that he should be released. (Doc. 1, at 5-7). Petitioner
is an immigration detainee currently in the custody of the United States Department of
Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and is held at
Moshannon Valley Processing Center in Philipsburg, Pennsylvania. (Doc. 1). On December
13, 2022, Petitioner filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.1 (Doc. 10)
1 The Court grants Petitioner’s for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in a separate order.
On July 16, 2012, in Pennsylvania State Court, Petitioner was convicted of aggravated
assault, simple assault, recklessly endangering another person, terroristic threat, and
possession of instrument of a crime.2 On March 19, 2014, an immigration judge ordered
Petitioner’s removal to Liberia on the grounds that he had been convicted of a crime. (Doc.
2, ¶ 13). According to Petitioner, Immigration and Customs intends to remove Petitioner once
it obtains travel documents from the Liberia Consult. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 17-19).
II. DISCUSSION
Under the Real ID Act of 2005, an order of removal may only be judicially reviewed
through a petition for review filed with the appropriate court of appeals. Real ID Act of 2005,
Pub. L. No. 109-13, sec. 106, § 242, 119 Stat. 231 (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1252
(2018)). This court does not have the jurisdiction to review a final removal order. See,
e.g., Merritt v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enf't, 737 F. App'x 66, 68 (3d Cir. 2018) (noting that
“the District Court lacked jurisdiction” to consider habeas corpus petition challenging
removal order); Khouzam v. Attorney General of U.S., 549 F.3d 235, 244 (3d Cir. 2008) (noting
2 The Court takes judicial notice of the state court docket Commonwealth v. Massaquoi,
CP-51-CR-0003006-2010 (Philadelphia County C.C.P.). In re Congoleum Corp., 426 F.3d 675,
679 n.2 (3d Cir. 2005) (taking judicial notice of “state court proceedings insofar as they are
relevant”); see, e.g., In re Trichilo, 540 B.R. 547, 549 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. Nov. 16, 2015)
(taking judicial notice of an underlying case's docket); Mollett v. Leith, No. 09-1192, 2011 WL
5407359, at *2 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 8, 2011) (“A court may also take judicial notice of
the docket in Plaintiffs’ underlying criminal trial.”), aff'd sub nom. Mollett v. Leicth, 511 F.
App'x 172 (3d Cir. 2013); Carroll v. Prothonotary, No. 08-1683, 2008 WL 5429622, at *2 (W.D.
Pa. Dec. 31, 2008) (taking judicial notice of court records and dockets of federal district
courts).
2
that the Real ID Act removed district courts' habeas corpus jurisdiction over petitions
challenging removal orders); Zubrytskyy v. Doll, No. 1:18-CV-02239, 2019 WL 1227459, at *2
(M.D. Pa. Mar. 15, 2019) (“[F]ederal district courts have no jurisdiction over any claims
asserted by aliens challenging their underlying removal orders.”); Shafer v. Bureau of
Immigration & Customs Enf't, No. 3:07-CV-00264, 2007 WL 1217692, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 22,
2007) (recommending dismissal of habeas petition challenging removal order for lack of
jurisdiction), report and recommendation adopted, No. 3:07-CV-00264, 2007 WL 1217692, at *3
(M.D. Pa. Apr. 24, 2007). Accordingly, since this Court cannot exercise habeas corpus
jurisdiction over a final removal order, the court also does not have the jurisdiction to stay an
order of removal. See, e.g., Reddi v. Lowe, No. 3:11-CV-00488, 2011 WL 1398486, at *4 n.3
(M.D. Pa. Apr. 13, 2011) (“[W]e find that we have no jurisdiction to enjoin the Respondents
from executing a removal order.”); Charles v. Bice, No. 4:06-CV-02316, 2007 WL 88213, at *1
(M.D. Pa. Jan. 9, 2007) (finding that court lacked jurisdiction to
issue stay of removal under Real ID Act).
In this case, the Petitioner is requesting this Court to do something that it is without legal
authority to do: stay his removal from the United States while he attempts to litigate his
removal and criminal proceedings. (Doc. 2, at 6-7); (Doc. 3, at 6-7). Because the court lacks
jurisdiction to grant the relief Petitioner seeks, his emergency motions for
a stay of removal and reopen must be denied.3 Zubrytskyy, 2019 WL 1227459, at *2; see also
3 Petitioner indicates that he filed a timely immigration appeal on or before April 18,
2014, that was denied. (Doc. 3, ¶ 13). Petitioner also states that he filed another appeal on
3
Hutchinson v. Dep't of Homeland Sec., No. 1:19-CV-541, 2020 WL 1228774, at *3 (M.D. Pa.
Jan. 21, 2020), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:19-CV-541, 2020 WL 1183389 (M.D.
Pa. Mar. 12, 2020) (concluding petitioner’s complaint failed as a matter of law where
petitioner’s complaint expressly requested the Court to strike the removal order entered
against him in deportation proceedings).
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Petitioner's emergency motions for a stay of his removal
and motion to reopen sua sponte are DENIED. (Doc. 2; Doc. 3).
An appropriate Order will follow.
BY THE COURT:
Dated: June 9, 2023 s/ Karoline Mehalchick
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
Chief United States Magistrate Judge
September 9, 2022, to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) but yet not received any
response. (Doc. 1, ¶ 17). The outcome of that motion to reopen may be subject to judicial
review if the BIA applies the wrong legal standard. Circuit courts have jurisdiction over final
orders of the BIA under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1). See Garcia v. Att'y Gen., 665 F.3d 496, 502 n.4
(3d Cir. 2011). While circuit courts generally lack jurisdiction to review a BIA decision
declining to exercise its discretion to sua sponte reopen a removal proceeding, see Calle-Vujiles,
320 F.3d at 475, the circuit court “may exercise jurisdiction to the limited extent of
recognizing when the BIA has relied on an incorrect legal premise,” Pllumi v. Att'y Gen., 642
F.3d 155, 160 (3d Cir. 2011). “In such cases the circuit court can remand to the BIA so it may
exercise its authority against the correct legal background.” Pllumi, 642 F.3d at 160 (quotation
marks omitted). Thus, the circuit court may review legal questions concerning the
interpretation of the INA de novo. Roye v. Att'y Gen., 693 F.3d 333, 339 (3d Cir. 2012); see
also Aristy-Rosa v. Attorney General United States, 994 F.3d 112, 114 (3d Cir. 2021).
4