Singh v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: June 25, 2024
• Docket: 1:24-cv-03472
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GURMEET SINGH, Case No. 24-cv-03472-RMI

8 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; SHOW CAUSE 10 FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, SAN ORDER FRANCISCO FIELD OFFICE, UNITED 11 STATES IMMIGRATION AND Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 3 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., 12 Respondents. 13 14 Petitioner, a federal detainee, filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 15 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges his prolonged detention by the United States Immigration 16 and Custom Enforcement (ICE) at the Mesa Verde Processing Center in Bakersfield, California. 17 He also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (dkt. 2). 18 DISCUSSION 19 Standard of Review 20 This court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person “in 21 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 22 2241(c)(3). It shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why 23 the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person 24 detained is not entitled thereto.” Id. § 2243. 25 Legal Claims 26 Petitioner has been in ICE custody for nearly three years, and he was eligible for removal 27 on October 4, 2023. (dkt. 1 at 4). Since then, no action has been taken while he remains in 1 District courts have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review habeas petitions by non- 2 citizens challenging the lawfulness of their detention. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 699 3 (2001). Although 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) authorizes the government to continue to detain an alien 4 after entry of a final removal order, it does not permit indefinite detention of an alien because his 5 native country will not accept him. See id. at 687-88, 697- 98. Once removal is no longer 6 reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized by statute. Id. at 699-700. 7 Liberally construed, the petition states a cognizable claim for habeas relief under § 2241 8 based on petitioner’s prolonged detention by ICE. See Zichko v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th 9 Cir. 2001) (federal courts must construe pro se petitions for writs of habeas corpus liberally). 10 Petitioner has also requested the appointment of counsel. The Sixth Amendment right to 11 counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th 12 Cir. 1986). But 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to 13 represent a habeas petitioner whenever “the court determines that the interests of justice so 14 require.” Petitioner has presented his claim adequately and the issues are not complex. The Court 15 finds that the interests of justice do not warrant the appointment of counsel at this time. 16 CONCLUSION 17 Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. 2) is GRANTED. The motion to 18 appoint counsel (dkt. 3) is DENIED without prejudice. 19 The Clerk shall serve electronically (1) a copy of this order and (2) a notice of assignment 20 of prisoner case to a United States magistrate judge and accompanying magistrate judge 21 jurisdiction consent or declination to consent form (requesting that respondent consent or decline 22 to consent within 28 days of receipt of service) upon the Respondent and the Respondent’s 23 attorney, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, at the following email 24 addresses: (1) usacan.ecf@usdoj.gov; (2) michelle.lo@usdoj.gov; and (3) kathy.terry@usdoj.gov. 25 The petition and exhibits thereto are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the 26 Northern District of California. The Clerk shall serve by mail a copy of this order on Petitioner. 27 Respondent shall file with the court and serve on Petitioner, within fifty-six (56) days of 1 Section 2254 Cases, showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. 2 || Respondent shall file, with the Answer, and serve on Petitioner, a copy of all portions of the state 3 trial record that have been transcribed previously and that are relevant to a determination of the 4 || issues presented by the Petition. 5 If Petitioner wishes to respond to the Answer, he shall do so by filing a Traverse with the 6 || court and serving it on Respondent within twenty-eight (28) days of his receipt of the Answer. 7 Respondent may file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds in lieu of an Answer, as 8 set forth in the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. 9 If Respondent files such a motion, it is due fifty-six (56) days from the date that this order is 10 entered. If a motion is filed, Petitioner shall file with the court, and serve on Respondent, an 11 opposition or statement of non-opposition within twenty-eight (28) days of receipt of the motion, 12 and Respondent shall file with the court, and serve on Petitioner, a reply within fourteen (14) days 5 13 of receipt of any opposition. 14 Petitioner is reminded that all communications with the court must be served on 3 15 || Respondent by mailing a true copy of the document to Respondent’s counsel. Petitioner must keep 16 || the court informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a timely 3 17 fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute pursuant 18 to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). See Martinez v. Johnson, 104 F.3d 769, 772 (Sth Cir. 19 1997) (Rule 41(b) applicable in habeas cases). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: June 25, 2024 22 Mt Z 23 ROBERT M. ILLMAN United States Magistrate Judge 25 26 27 28