Gebregiorgis Zerisenay v. United States

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Case No. ED CV 20-1390 ODW (MRW) 13 GEBREGIORGIS ZERISENAY, ORDER DISMISSING ACTION 14 Petitioner, WITHOUT PREJUDICE 15 v. 16 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 17 Respondent. 18 19 The Court dismisses this immigration-related matter as moot and for 20 lack of jurisdiction. 21 * * * 22 1. Petitioner Zerisenay is an inmate at the federal prison in 23 Victorville. He has a projected release date from criminal custody in 2025. 24 (Docket # 9-1 at 1-2.) 25 2. In July 2020, Petitioner filed a “motion to dismiss immigration 26 detainer.” (Docket # 1.) Petitioner’s submission alleged that there was an 27 immigration detainer pending against him. Petitioner contends that the 28 1 detainer was improper based on his claim to derivative U.S. citizenship 2 based on the status of his parents. (Id.) 3 3. Magistrate Judge Wilner screened the motion. Judge Wilner 4 noted several key defects with Petitioner’s submission, including the lack of 5 a recognizable case-commencing pleading. (Docket # 3.) Judge Wilner 6 ordered Petitioner to submit a supplemental statement addressing these 7 problems. In response, Petitioner filed various additional materials 8 (previously submitted to immigration officials) in which Petitioner asserted 9 what he contended were his correct date and place of birth. (Docket # 4.) 10 4. Although noting that Petitioner’s filings did not address the 11 Court’s concerns, Judge Wilner directed that these materials be served on 12 the government for review and response. (Docket # 5.) In its response, the 13 government explained that ICE cancelled the immigration detainer in 14 August 2020. (Docket # 9.) Because the government construed Petitioner’s 15 action to be one sounding in habeas corpus, the government suggested that 16 the case was now moot on the termination of the detainer. (Id. at 2.) 17 5. Petitioner filed a response asserting that the Court “adjudicate 18 the issues” and order the government to correct alleged errors with his 19 citizenship application. (Docket # 12 at 6-7.) The government, in turn, 20 noted that this district court did not have jurisdiction to consider or 21 overrule the decision of immigration authorities regarding the issues of 22 Petitioner’s application. (Docket # 14.) 23 * * * 24 6. If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person 25 detained is not entitled” to relief, a court may summarily dismiss an action. 26 Local Civil Rule 72-3.2 (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for 27 28 1 summary dismissal to district judge “if it plainly appears from the face of 2 the petition [ ] that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”). 3 7. Petitioner’s action is certainly moot. He filed a “motion” 4 requesting that his immigration detainer be cancelled during the pendency 5 of his criminal custody. (Docket # 1.) The government demonstrated that 6 the detainer was terminated. (Docket # 9.) That made the federal action 7 moot – the Court is no longer able to provide Petitioner with the relief that 8 he requested in his motion. 9 8. Further, Petitioner has not established that this federal 10 district court has jurisdiction to take up his additional claims regarding his 11 citizenship application. Such claims are ordinarily reviewed in 12 immigration proceedings, through administrative appeals within the 13 executive branch, and on appeal to a federal court of appeals. 8 U.S.C. 14 § 1252(b); Chau v. INS, 247 F.3d 1026, 1028 n.2 (9th Cir. 2001); Ortega- 15 Morales v. Lynch, 168 F. Sipp. 1228 (D. Ariz. 2016) (discussing finality and 16 exhaustion requirements under immigration statutes). 17 9. Petitioner offers no understandable basis for this district to 18 assert jurisdiction over the remains of his claims here. As a result, the 19 action must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Therefore, the present action is hereby DISMISSED without 2 | prejudice. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4“ 4 : Wg 5 6 | Dated: December 9, 2020 7 HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9 Presented by: 10 Miu

HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER 15 | UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 an

23 24 25 26