Frank Sepulveda v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, et al.

Opinion

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6

7 FRANK SEPULVEDA, Case No. 1:26-cv-02260-KES-SAB-HC

8 Petitioner, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED 9 v. FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION FRANCISCO FIELD OFFICE, UNITED ENFORCEMENT, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 I. 16 Petitioner is a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse 17 Treatment Facility. (ECF No. 1 at 1.1) On March 11, 2026, Petitioner filed the instant petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. 19 (ECF No. 1.) On March 24, 2026, the petition was transferred to this Court. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.) 20 That same day, Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction for 21 failure to name a proper respondent. (ECF No. 8.) 22 II. 24 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases2 requires preliminary review of a 25 habeas petition and allows a district court to dismiss a petition before the respondent is ordered 26

27 1 Page numbers refer to the ECF page numbers stamped at the top of the page. 2 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases apply to § 2241 habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (“The district court may apply any or all of these rules to a habeas corpus petition not covered 1 to file a response, if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 2 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 3 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. 4 A. Jurisdiction 5 In the petition, Petitioner challenges an ICE detainer and states that he is “petitioning to 6 stop and remove all holds detainers, deportations and extraction.” (ECF No. 1 at 4.) The federal 7 habeas statute provides that a district court may entertain a habeas application by a person “in 8 custody under or by color of the authority of the United States” or “in custody in violation of the 9 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(1), (3). Here, 10 Petitioner challenges an immigration detainer.

11 A detainer serves to advise another law enforcement agency that the Department [of Homeland Security] seeks custody of an alien presently in the custody of that 12 agency, for the purpose of arresting and removing the alien. The detainer is a request that such agency advise the Department, prior to release of the alien, in 13 order for the Department to arrange to assume custody, in situations when gaining immediate physical custody is either impracticable or impossible. 14 15 8 C.F.R. § 287.7. The Ninth Circuit has “concluded that ‘the bare detainer letter alone does not 16 sufficiently place an alien in INS custody to make habeas corpus available.’” Campos v. I.N.S., 17 62 F.3d 311, 314 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting Garcia v. Taylor, 40 F.3d 299, 303 (9th Cir. 1994)). 18 See Zolicoffer v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 315 F.3d 538, 540 (5th Cir. 2003) (“Most of the circuit 19 courts that have considered the question have held that [an immigration] detainer does not place 20 a prisoner in ‘custody’ for purposes of habeas proceedings.”). 21 Given that Petitioner is not currently in the custody of the Department of Homeland 22 Security, this Court lacks jurisdiction over a habeas petition challenging the immigration 23 detainer. Additionally, to the extent Petitioner is attempting to preemptively litigate a future 24 removal proceeding, this Court lacks jurisdiction to address his claims. See 8 U.S.C. 25 § 1252(a)(5) (“[A] petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals . . . shall be the 26 sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal . . . .”); 8 U.S.C. 27 § 1252(b)(9) (“Judicial review of all questions of law or fact . . . arising from any action taken or 1 | judicial review of a final order of removal... .”); .”); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) (“[N]o court shall have 2 | jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or 3 | action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal 4 | orders against any alien under this chapter.”). Accordingly, Petitioner will be required to show 5 | cause why the Court has habeas jurisdiction over his challenge to the immigration detainer and 6 | future removal proceedings. 7 B. Challenge to State Conviction 8 It appears that Petitioner also may be challenging his criminal conviction. For example, 9 | attached to the petition is a copy of a motion to enter new evidence and related documents to 10 | prove factual innocence and wrongful conviction. (ECF No. 1 at 7-13.) In a subsequent filing, 11 | Petitioner provides a copy of what appears to be a form submitted to the Exoneration Project. 12 | (ECF No. 12 at 12-18.) Accordingly, Petitioner will be required to inform the Court whether he 13 | is challenging his criminal conviction. 14 Il. 16 Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE within THIRTY (30) days 17 | from the date of service of this order why the petition should not be dismissed for lack of 18 | jurisdiction. 19 Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order will result in a recommendation 20 | for dismissal of the petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (a petitioner’s 21 | failure to prosecute or to comply with a court order may result in a dismissal of the action). 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 24 | Dated: _ April 30, 2026_ eee STANLEY A. BOONE 25 United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28