Opinion
Civil No. 04-1332 ADM/JSM.
January 3, 2005
Raul Castaneda, pro se.
Elizabeth C.L. Peterson, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge pursuant to the Objections of Raul Castaneda ("Petitioner") [Docket No. 18] to the December 2, 2004 Report and Recommendation ("RR") of Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron [Docket No. 17]. The RR recommends dismissing Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 ("Habeas Petition") [Docket No. 1] and Motion to Amend Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Amended Petition") [Docket No. 11].
Plaintiff's name appears as Raul Castaneda Gutierrez in the RR and in the related criminal case. As Plaintiff's Complaint in the present civil action was filed under the name Raul Castaneda, the Court will use that name for the purposes of this Order.
As the RR notes, Petitioner titled his Amended Petition as a "Motion to Amend Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus." Although he did not actually seek leave from the Court to file the Amended Petition, the Court chose to consider it and required the Government to respond to it.
Petitioner alleges the United States of America, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Secretary of State, and United States Marshal Service (collectively "Government") are illegally holding him pursuant to an invalid extradition order. The RR recommends that Plaintiff's claims be dismissed because competent legal evidence existed to support a finding of extraditability. The factual and procedural background in this matter is set forth in the RR and is incorporated by reference for purposes of the present Objections. For the reasons set forth below, the Objections are denied and the RR is adopted.
II. DISCUSSION
The district court must undertake an independent, de novo, review of those portions of a RR to which objection is made and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also D. Minn. LR 72.1(c)(2).
Petitioner objects to a number of the RR's findings, including: (1) the statement that Petitioner must receive the Court's permission to amend a habeas corpus petition; (2) the finding that probable cause existed to support Magistrate Judge Susan Richard Nelson's Certification of Extraditability and Order of Commitment ("Extradition Order"); (3) the denial of Petitioner's request for discovery and "expert investigation"; and (4) the finding that Petitioner was not denied due process rights under the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, Petitioner alleges prosecutors failed to turn over exculpatory evidence, contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel, and contends he was denied his right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. Petitioner also contests Judge Nelson's decision to deny bail while extradition is pending. Since filing his Objections to the RR, Petitioner has also filed a Motion to Appoint Counsel [Docket No. 19] (which was also requested in the Objections to the RR), a Motion for a Physical Examination under Rule 35(a) [Docket No. 20] and a Motion for the Appointment of Effective Defense Counsel [Docket No. 22].
As the RR correctly states, "[b]ecause a finding of extraditability is not subject to direct appeal, collateral review is possible only through a writ of habeas corpus." RR at 5 quoting In re Assarsson, 667 F.2d 1157, 1159 (8th Cir. 1982). As the petition of writ of habeas corpus "is not a means of rehearing what the magistrate already has decided," the scope of review in an extradition context is closely circumscribed.United States v. Wiebe, 733 F.2d 549, 552 (8th Cir. 1984).
On collateral review by habeas corpus, the Court is not permitted to inquire beyond whether (1) the extradition judge has jurisdiction to conduct extradition proceedings; (2) the extradition judge had jurisdiction over the fugitive; (3) the treaty of extradition was in full force and effect; (4) the crime fell within terms of the treaty; and (5) there was competent legal evidence to support a finding of extraditability.In re Assarsson, 687 F.2d at 1159.
None of Petitioner's many objections fall within the first four categories of appropriate habeas review. Petitioner's objections do challenge the RR's finding that competent legal evidence exists to support Judge Nelson's Extradition Order. Many of Petitioner's objections fall outside the narrow scope of habeas review.
A. Objections Outside the Scope of Habeas Review
As noted, the scope of habeas review is limited to five specific categories. As the RR correctly found, several of Petitioner's challenges fell outside this narrow scope and were therefore unsuitable for review. RR at 6 n. 3. Likewise, this Court finds that several of Petitioner's objections to the RR's findings, namely Petitioner's requests for discovery, "expert investigation" and a jury trial, as well as his allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and ineffective assistance of counsel, are outside the scope of habeas review. Petitioner's contention that Judge Nelson erred by not finding special circumstances justifying his release while extradition is pending also is beyond the boundaries of habeas jurisdiction. As a result, these "objections" are not properly before this Court and will not be considered.
Furthermore, as previously discussed, a writ of habeas corpus is the sole means for challenging a finding of extraditability. Therefore, Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel, Motion for a Physical Examination under Rule 35(a) (as well as the Motion for a Physical Examination under Rule 35(a) embedded in Petitioner's Objections to the RR) and Motion for the Appointment of Effective Defense Counsel are not properly before this court and must be denied.
B. Failure to Request Permission from the Court to Amend Petition for Habeas Corpus
Petitioner argues that he is allowed to amend a habeas petition without the Court's permission, pursuant to Rule 15(a). Fed.R.Civ.P. 15. Because Judge Mayeron accepted and considered the Amended Petition, this Court finds that Petitioner's objection is moot.
C. Challenge to Finding that Extradition Order was Supported by Probable Cause
Petitioner objects to the RR's finding that competent legal evidence existed to support Judge Nelson's Extradition Order. He claims the Court relied on witness statements given at the extradition hearing that were so false and contradictory they could not provide probable cause for extradition.
Petitioner lists several other reasons why Judge Nelson's findings should be overturned for lack of probable cause in his Habeas Petition and Amended Petition. See RR at 7. Since he does not include these grounds in his Objections to the RR, they will not be considered here.
An extradition hearing is held to ensure "that probable cause exists to believe the person whose surrender is sought has committed the crime for which his extradition is requested." Wiebe, 733 F.2d at 553. To satisfy the probable cause standard applicable to extradition proceedings, the Government must present "evidence sufficient to cause a person of ordinary prudence and caution to conscientiously entertain a reasonable belief of the accused's guilt." Id. at 553.
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3190, properly authenticated and certified extradition documents are admissible evidence "for all purposes" of an extradition hearing. See Wiebe, 733 F.2d at 553. As the RR notes, Judge Nelson considered extradition documents that included six witness statements, the charging documents and arrest warrant for Petitioner, and four expert reports, before reaching the conclusion that extradition was supported by probable cause. RR at 8; see Castaneda Gutierrez, Crim. No. 03-MJ-431 (DSD), Gov't Ex. 1. Based on these documents, this Court agrees with the RR's finding that "Judge Nelson relied on competent legal evidence to find probable cause to support the homicide charge against petitioner Castaneda Gutierrez." RR at 9.
Judge Nelson considered the statements of Reyna Maria Orozco Guzman (see Castaneda Gutierrez, Crim. No. 03-MJ-431 (DSD, Gov't Ex. 1, at Attach. 3, 15), Jose de Jesus Nunez Gomez (Id. at Attach. 4), Manuel Venegas Carrillo (Id. at Attach. 17), Isidra Guzman Puente (Id. at Attach. 18), Alfredo Nunez Gomez (Id. at Attach. 19) and Rosendo Guzman Perez (Id. at Attach. 20). She also considered a toxicological chemical opinion (Id. at Attach. 12), an autopsy expert opinion (Id. at Attach. 14), the field criminalistics expert opinion (Id. at Attach. 21), the ballistic expert opinion (Id. at Attach. 25), the decision of the Federal Public Prosecutor for the state of Jalisco (Id. at 27) and the arrest warrant signed by the Fourth Judge in Criminal Matters for the District of Zacatecas (Id. at Attach. 29).
Petitioner claims the witness statements were so false and contradictory they could not support a finding of probable cause. This argument is without merit. Although Judge Nelson acknowledged that the statements contained inconsistencies, she reached the conclusion that the disparities did not defeat a finding of probable cause that Petitioner committed the offense for which extradition is sought. This Court agrees with the RR's finding. The purpose of an extradition hearing is to determine whether the Government has presented evidence supporting the finding that probable cause exists to believe the accused committed the crime charged. See Wiebe, 733 F.2d at 552. It is not to resolve issues concerning the inconsistency of the evidence offered by the Government. The proper forum for rasing facts contradicting the requesting country's proof, certain defenses and issues surrounding witness credibility, bias, or motive is not the extradition proceeding but Petitioner's trial in Mexico. See id. at 553 n. 4; see also Collins v. Loisel, 259 U.S. 309, 315-16 (1922); In re Locatelli, 468 F. Supp. 568, 573-74 (S.D.N.Y. 1979); Matter of Sindona, 450 F. Supp. 672, 685 (S.D.N.Y. 1978).
For the aforementioned reasons, Petitioner's Objections must be denied.
III. CONCLUSION
Based upon the foregoing, and all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:1. Judge Mayeron's RR [Docket No. 17] is ADOPTED in its entirety;
2. Petitioner's Objections to the RR [Docket No. 18] are DENIED;
3. Petitioner's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Docket No. 1] is DENIED;
4. Petitioner's Motion to Amend Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Docket No. 11] is DENIED;
5. Petitioner's Motion to Appoint Counsel [Docket No. 19] is DENIED;
6. Petitioner's Motion for a Physical Examination under Rule 35(a) [Docket No. 20] is DENIED;
7. Petitioner's Motion for the Appointment of Effective Defense Counsel [Docket No. 22] is DENIED;
8. Petitioner's case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.