Bailey v. Borda

N.D. California

Bailey v. Borda

DecidedJuly 2, 2024

Docket3:24-cv-02307

StatusUnknown

This text of Bailey v. Borda (Bailey v. Borda) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey v. Borda, (N.D. Cal. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JASPER W. BAILEY, G60744, Case No. 24-cv-02307-CRB (PR)

9 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 10 v. (ECF Nos. 2, 3 & 5) 11 E. BORDA, Warden, 12 Respondent.

13 Petitioner, a state prisoner serving multiple state court sentences at the Correctional 14 Training Facility (CTF) in Soledad, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas 15 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging an immigration detainer filed against him by 16 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma 17 pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 18 The federal writ of habeas corpus is only available to persons “in custody” at the time the 19 petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c), 2254(a). This requirement is jurisdictional. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). And unfortunately for petitioner, 20 it is well established that an immigration detainer “does not sufficiently place an alien in [ICE] 21 custody to make habeas corpus available.” Garcia v. Taylor, 40 F.3d 299, 303 (9th Cir. 1994), 22 superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in, Campos v. INS, 62 F.3d 311,314 (9th Cir. 23 1995). An immigration detainer, like the one petitioner attaches to his petition, simply expresses 24 interest in the prisoner and notifies prison officials that a decision regarding his deportation will be 25 made in the future; it does not compel prison officials to hold the prisoner for ICE. See id. at 304. 26 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging an 27 immigration detainer is DISMISSED for lack of “in custody” jurisdiction and the two pending 1 miscellaneous motions for related habeas relief (ECF Nos. 2 & 3) similarly are DISMISSED as 2 || moot and/or for lack of merit. But based solely on petitioner’s affidavit of poverty, his application 3 for leave to proceed IFP (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED. 4 The clerk is instructed to terminate the motions appearing on ECF as items number 2, 3 5 and 5. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: July 2, 2024 8 Af CHARLES R. BREYER 9 United States District Judge 10 1]

2B

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JASPER W. BAILEY, G60744, Case No. 24-cv-02307-CRB (PR)

9 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 10 v. (ECF Nos. 2, 3 & 5) 11 E. BORDA, Warden, 12 Respondent.

13 Petitioner, a state prisoner serving multiple state court sentences at the Correctional 14 Training Facility (CTF) in Soledad, California, has filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas 15 corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging an immigration detainer filed against him by 16 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Petitioner also seeks leave to proceed in forma 17 pauperis (IFP) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 18 The federal writ of habeas corpus is only available to persons “in custody” at the time the 19 petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c), 2254(a). This requirement is jurisdictional. Carafas v. LaVallee, 391 U.S. 234, 238 (1968). And unfortunately for petitioner, 20 it is well established that an immigration detainer “does not sufficiently place an alien in [ICE] 21 custody to make habeas corpus available.” Garcia v. Taylor, 40 F.3d 299, 303 (9th Cir. 1994), 22 superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in, Campos v. INS, 62 F.3d 311,314 (9th Cir. 23 1995). An immigration detainer, like the one petitioner attaches to his petition, simply expresses 24 interest in the prisoner and notifies prison officials that a decision regarding his deportation will be 25 made in the future; it does not compel prison officials to hold the prisoner for ICE. See id. at 304. 26 For the foregoing reasons, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging an 27 immigration detainer is DISMISSED for lack of “in custody” jurisdiction and the two pending 1 miscellaneous motions for related habeas relief (ECF Nos. 2 & 3) similarly are DISMISSED as 2 || moot and/or for lack of merit. But based solely on petitioner’s affidavit of poverty, his application 3 for leave to proceed IFP (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED. 4 The clerk is instructed to terminate the motions appearing on ECF as items number 2, 3 5 and 5. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: July 2, 2024 8 Af CHARLES R. BREYER 9 United States District Judge 10 1]

2B

15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Bailey v. Borda, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-borda-cand-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack