Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tatiana Belenkaya v. Trey Lund

January 20, 2011

TATIANA BELENKAYA, PETITIONER,
v.
TREY LUND, FIELD DIRECTOR, LOS ANGELES FIELD OFFICE, UNITED STATES BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE);
JOHN T. MORTON, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF ICE;
JANET NAPOLITANO, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY;
ERIC HOLDER, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; OCTAVIO C. LUNA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PATTON STATE HOSPITAL, RESPONDENTS
AND
GATEWAYS HOSPITAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CENTER, THIRD-PARTY RESPONDENT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Magistrate Judge Ralph Zarefsky

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING THE STIPULATED JOINDER OF GATEWAYS HOSPITAL AND MENTAL HEALTH CENTER AS THIRD-PARTY RESPONDENT AND DISMISSING THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

[Filed Concurrently with Stipulation [Corrected] to the Joinder of Gateways Hospital and Mental Health Center as Third-Party Respondent and to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus]

Having read and considered the parties' written Stipulation [Corrected] to the Joinder of Gateways Hospital and Mental Health Center as Third-Party Respondent and to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Petition) of Petitioner Tatiana Belenkaya (Petitioner), the Court hereby adopts the following findings of facts as to which the parties have stipulated, and enters the following order:

Stipulated Findings of Fact

1. Petitioner filed her Petition on July 27, 2010, seeking release from Patton State Hospital (Patton) for the purpose of being admitted to the Conditional Release Program (CONREP) at Gateways Hospital and Mental Health Center (Gateways) in accordance with the December 1, 2005 Order of the Los Angeles County Superior Court (Superior Court) in the matter of People v. Belenkaya, Los Angeles County Superior Court Case No. SA036363.

2. On June 1, 2001, by order of the Los Angeles County Superior Court (Superior Court) in People v. Belenkaya, Petitioner was involuntarily committed to the care of and treatment by the California Department of Mental Health (DMH) pursuant to California Penal Code section 1026.

3. By virtue of her involuntary commitment, and in accordance with the California Penal Code, Petitioner is subject to the continuing jurisdiction and supervision of the Superior Court, whether Petitioner is in treatment at Patton, Gateways or another form of conditional release, until such time as her commitment is dissolved and/or terminated by the Superior Court.

4. On December 1, 2005, the Superior Court found that Petitioner "will no longer be a threat to the health and safety of others while under supervision in the community," and directed DMH to transfer Petitioner from Patton to Gateways.

5. On July 12, 2006, the United States Immigration Court at San Pedro, California issued an order in the matter of Belenkaya, Tatiana, Case No. A77-282-103 to remove Petitioner from the United States to the Ukraine (July 16, 2006 order).

6. The July 12, 2006 order constitutes a final order of removal.

7. United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) intends to remove Petitioner from the United States, if possible, pursuant to the July 12, 2006 order.

8. On May 18, 2007, ICE issued a Notice of Immigration Detainer (Detainer) to Patton.

9. The parties and Gateways have entered into and filed their written Stipulation to the Joinder of Gateways Conditional Release Program as Third-Party Respondent and to Dismiss the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Stipulation), wherein the parties and Gateways stipulate and agree that Petitioner may be directly transferred from Patton to Gateways subject to the terms and conditions of this Order and the December 1, 2005 Order of the Superior Court in People v. Belenkaya.

10. Gateways agrees to be joined as a third-party respondent to this action pursuant to the Stipulation if, in fact, this Court grants this [Proposed] Order, thus binding Gateways to the terms of the Stipulation and the enforcement thereof pursuant to the granted Order. If, however, this Court does not grant ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.