Gebregiorgis Zerisenay v. United States

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 28, 2022
• Docket: 5:22-cv-00433
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 5:22-cv-00433-ODW-MRW Document 11 Filed 07/28/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:67

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 22-433 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 Gebregioris1 is an inmate at the federal prison in 23 Victorville. According to the BOP’s inmate locater website, he has a 24 projected release date from criminal custody in 2025. 25 26

27 1 According to records from Petitioner’s federal criminal case, his proper name is Zerisanay Gebregiorgis. However, when he filed this petition, 28 he inverted the order of his names. Case 5:22-cv-00433-ODW-MRW Document 11 Filed 07/28/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:68

1 2. This is Petitioner’s second action in this federal court in which 2 he filed a “motion to dismiss immigration detainer.”2 See Zerisenay v. 3 United States, No. ED CV 20-1390 ODW (MRW) (C.D. Cal.) (the 2020 4 action). In both the 2020 action and the present casw, Petitioner alleged 5 that immigration officials placed a detainer on him in advance of his 6 anticipated release from custody. Petitioner disputes that he is subject to 7 deportation. (Petitioner (a Sudanese native) claims derivative U.S. 8 citizenship through his parents following their naturalization.) 9 3. After the commencement of the 2020 action, the government 10 acknowledged that the immigration detainer had been placed in error. The 11 government cancelled the detainer. On that basis, the Court dismissed the 12 2020 action as moot; Petitioner received the relief (elimination of the 13 immigration detainer) that he sought in the action. 14 4. The same thing appears to have occurred here, although in a 15 slightly different context. In his criminal case, Petitioner appealed his 16 narcotics trafficking conviction and sentence. The Ninth Circuit affirmed 17 the conviction, but remanded the matter for re-imposition of conditions of 18 supervised release. United States v. Gebregiorgis, No. 18-30126 (9th Cir. 19 Aug. 21, 2020). 20 5. In April 2021, a district judge in the District of Alaska re- 21 sentenced Petitioner. The prosecutor acknowledged that the government 22 previously placed a detainer on Petitioner, but that it was removed. The 23 district judge stated that the immigration service “knows where to find him 24 if they feel like they want to put a detainer on him and initiate deportation 25 proceedings.” (Docket # 9-1 at 10 (transcript of re-sentencing).) That same 26 2 As in the 2020 action, the government correctly notes that Petitioner 27 failed to commence this action with a recognizable habeas petition or civil complaint. Nevertheless, the Court is able to discern the basis for Petitioner’s 28 request for relief as a form of habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 2 Case 5:22-cv-00433-ODW-MRW Document 11 Filed 07/28/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:69

1 day, ICE “issued another immigration detainer” on Petitioner. (Docket 2 # 5-1 at 2.) 3 6. After service of the petition in the current action, though, 4 immigration authorities again acknowledged that the detainer was 5 “mistakenly issued.” ICE cancelled the second detainer in March 2022. 6 (Id.) 7 7. At present, Petitioner is not subject to an immigration 8 detainer. On that basis, the government moves to dismiss the current 9 action as moot. (Docket # 5.) 10 8. However, Petitioner contends that the recent detainer 11 “affect[ed] his placement in RDAP” [residential drug abuse program in 12 BOP]. Petitioner also suspects that he will be “subject[ ] to further games 13 by government agents” that may lead to a third imposition of an 14 immigration detainer. (Docket # 7 at 2.) For this reason, he requests that 15 the Court issue some type of ruling regarding the matter. 16 * * * 17 9. If it “appears from the application that the applicant or person 18 detained is not entitled” to relief, a court may summarily dismiss an action. 19 Local Civil Rule 72-3.2 (magistrate judge may submit proposed order for 20 summary dismissal to district judge “if it plainly appears from the face of 21 the petition [ ] that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”). 22 * * * 23 10. As with the 2020 action, Petitioner’s current claim for relief is 24 moot. Petitioner commenced this action to request that his immigration 25 detainer be cancelled. He obtained that relief voluntarily during the 26 pendency of the action. As such, there is no dispute between the parties for 27 the Court to rule on. 28 3 Case 5:22-cv-00433-ODW-MRW Document11 Filed 07/28/22 Page 4of4 Page ID#:70

1 11. Further, as the Court informed Petitioner in the 2020 case, 2 | there is no lawful basis for this district court to rule on Petitioner’s 3 | underlying immigration- and citizenship-related claims. Such claims are 4 | ordinarily reviewed in immigration proceedings, through administrative 5 | appeals within the executive branch, and on appeal to a federal court of 6 | appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b); Chau v. INS, 247 F.3d 1026, 1028 n.2 (9th Cir. 7 | 2001); Ortega-Morales v. Lynch, 168 F. Sipp. 1228 (D. Ariz. 2016) 8 | (discussing finality and exhaustion requirements under immigration 9 | statutes). 10 12. Petitioner cogently notes that he (like any other inmate) faces 11 | the possibility of further detainers being imposed on him. He claims that 12 | the government’s conduct is “capable of repetition yet evading review,” 13 | which justifies federal court relief. (Docket # 7 at 2.) However, that bare 14 | argument is an inadequate basis for asserting federal court jurisdiction. 15 | Because there is no current claim against the government, the action must 16 | be dismissed as moot. 17 Therefore, the present action is hereby DISMISSED without 18 | prejudice. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. cage 20 Dated: July 28, 2022 21 HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT II 99 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 OA Presented by: 25 LU [ | | 26 27 | HON. MICHAEL R. WILNER 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE