United States District Court, E.D. California
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
who is proceeding pro se, seeks a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He has been in immigration
custody pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a) since February 6,
2015, and contends that his continued detention has become
indefinite. Accordingly, he claims that his detention
is not authorized by statute. He seeks federal habeas relief
on the following grounds: (1) his continued detention exceeds
the government's statutory authority under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231(a); (2) his indefinite detention violates his
substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fifth
Amendment's due process clause; and (3) that his
continued detention is punitive in nature and, therefore,
amounts to punishment without due process. Upon careful
consideration of the record and the applicable law, it is
recommended that petitioner's application for habeas
corpus relief be denied.
Motion to Amend the Petition
months after the filing of his traverse (ECF No.
petitioner filed a Motion to Amend the Petition (ECF No. 17).
The motion references case law and statutory authorities
which petitioner, without any appreciable analysis, offers as
support for the arguments raised in his traverse. ECF No. 17
at 2-6. Attached to his motion are various documents
including: (1) additional news articles describing killings
in the Philippines resulting from President Rodrigo
Duterte's war on drugs; (2) a letter from petitioner to
the Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Inspector
General, complaining about an agent's interview behavior;
(3) various letters attesting to petitioner's good
character and work ethic; and (4) a copy of his previously
filed traverse. Id. at 9-61. Lastly, the motion adds
an “additional prayer for relief” wherein
petitioner asks that this court:
[O]rder Respondents to release Petitioner from custody
immediately under his own recognizance without
conditions, issue a writ of habeas corpus to have
petitioner brought before it to the end that he may be
discharged from his unconstitutional confinement and
restraint, release on reasonable and affordable bond
amounting close to one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,
500.00) OR grant such other relief as may be appropriate and
to dispose of the matter as law and justice require.
Id. at 7 (emphasis added). Petitioner's original
request sought release from custody “under reasonable
conditions of supervision.” ECF No. 1 at 5.
motion to amend is granted and petitioner will be allowed to
substitute his new prayer for relief for the one contained in
his original petition. The court will also consider, to the
extent they are relevant, the authorities and exhibits
contained in his motion to amend.
Motion for Injunction
March 7, 2017, petitioner filed a motion for
injunction. ECF No. 20. The court construes this as a
motion for preliminary injunction, insofar as the need for
any injunction would be mooted if the immediate petition was
granted and he was released from custody. In his motion,
petitioner argues that his current detention in Alabama is
interfering with his ability to communicate with the
attorneys who are representing him before the Ninth Circuit.
Id. at 2-4. He asks this court to issue an
injunction requiring the government to transfer him back to a
detention facility in California. Id. at 1.
attorneys with whom petitioner is trying to communicate are
representing him in a separate proceeding before the Ninth
Circuit, which is considering a motion to stay his removal;
they are not representing him in this action. It is well
settled that a claim for injunctive relief must relate to the
underlying subject matter of the action in which it is filed.
See e.g., Little v. Jones, 607 F.3d 1245,
1250-51 (10th Cir. 2010); Colvin v. Caruso, 605 F.3d
282, 299-300 (6th Cir. 2010); Devose v. Herrington,
42 F.3d 470, 471 (8th Cir. 1994); Omega World Travel,
Inc. v. Trans World Airlines, 111 F.3d 14, 16 (4th Cir.
1997). Additionally, “[t]he purpose of a preliminary
injunction is to preserve the status quo ante litem pending a
determination of the action on the merits.”
Boardman v. Pac. Seafood Grp., 822 F.3d 1011, 1024
(9th Cir. 2016). Granting this motion would have no bearing
on the status of the current case and, accordingly, it must
be denied. Further, petitioner has not demonstrated a
likelihood of success on the merits. To the contrary, as
discussed below, his petition for habeas relief must be
Removal Order and Pending Ninth Circuit Review
is a native of the Philippines and was admitted to the United
States on a B-2 visa on March 20, 2003. ECF No. 13-1 ¶
3. His non-immigrant status changed to that of an R-1
religious worker in June of 2004 and, in June of 2009, he was
granted lawful permanent resident status. Id.
¶¶ 4-5. As noted, removal proceedings were
initiated in February, 2015, after he was charged with
attempting to procure a benefit under the Immigration and
Nationality Act via fraud or willful misrepresentation of a
material fact. Id. ¶ 6.
September 11, 2015, an immigration judge found petitioner
removable and ordered him removed to the Philippines.
Id. ¶ 7; ECF No. 1 at 2. That decision was
affirmed by the Board of Immigration Appeals on February 26,
2016 and, on March 7, 2016, petitioner filed a petition for
review with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
ECF No. 13-1 ¶¶ 8-9. Petitioner also filed a motion
to stay removal and, as of May 25, 2016, the Ninth Circuit
has temporarily stayed his removal pending its consideration
of that motion. Ninth Circuit Pet. No. 16-70634 at Dkt. No.