Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Guzman-Vasquez v. Holder

United States District Court, S.D. California

June 18, 2014

JULIO ALEXANDER GUZMAN-VASQUEZ, Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States, et al, Defendant.

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH PREJUDICE [Doc. No.1]

MICHAEL M. ANELLO, District Judge.

Petitioner Julio Alexander Guzman-Vasquez, proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("petition") pursuant to Title 28 of the United States Code, section 2241. See Doc. No. 1. He contemporaneously moves for injunctive relief. See Doc. No. 2. Petitioner is a Guatemalan national, who was previously designated as a lawful permanent resident of the United States. Petitioner was ordered removed under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"), 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. Petitioner reentered the United States after deportation and was arrested. Petitioner is attempting to reopen his immigration proceedings. He seeks restoration of his status as a lawful permanent resident and cancellation of removal. As an initial matter, Petitioner has not paid the $5.00 filing fee and has not moved to proceed in forma pauperis. A petition must be accompanied by a $5.00 filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See Local Rule 3(a), 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Therefore, the petition is subject to dismissal on this ground. Moreover, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. "Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause." Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). Accordingly, federal courts are under a continuing duty to confirm their jurisdictional power and are even "obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to its existence...." Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977). This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the petition. Title 8, section 1252, provides as follows:

no court shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this Act.

8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). This provision was created to "eliminate[] district court habeas corpus jurisdiction over orders of removal and vest[] jurisdiction to review such orders exclusively in the courts of appeals." Puri v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2006), citing Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 928-929 (9th Cir. 2005). "[A] petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals... shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an order of removal." 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5). Petitioner's remedy is to file a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, [1] which he has done. See Case No. 14-70488.

Based on the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the Court DISMISSES the petition with prejudice. The Clerk of Court shall terminate all pending motions and enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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