Opinion
No. C 03-0961 VRW (PR); (Doc # 2)
March 13, 2003
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Plaintiff, a state prisoner incarcerated at California State Prison, Solano, has filed a pro se motion/complaint/petition alleging that the federal government violated the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, 18 U.S.C. App. 2 ("IAD"). Plaintiff specifically alleges that on January 8, 2002, the INS placed a "detainer/holder" against him based on an arrest warrant on a charge of illegal entry, and that said "detainer/holder" has not been resolved in accordance with IAD. Plaintiff seeks dismissal of "Information, Indictment, Detainer and/or Hold" pursuant to IAD.
IAD, to which California and the United States are party states, requires the government to bring a prisoner to trial "within one hundred and eighty days after he shall have caused to be delivered to the prosecuting officer and the appropriate court of the prosecuting officer's jurisdiction written notice" of his demand for a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. App. 2, § 2, Art III(a). Failure to bring the prisoner to trial within 180 days after the proper request for trial is made requires that the "untried indictment, information or complaint" against the prisoner be dismissed. Id at Art. V(c); United States v. Mauro, 436 U.S. 340, 364 (1978).
IAD does not apply to plaintiff because a detainer based on an arrest warrant does not constitute an untried indictment, information or complaint under IAD. See United States v. Bottoms, 755 F.2d 1349, 1349-50 (9th Cir 1985); see also United States v. Gonzalez-Mendoza, 985 F.2d 1014, 1016 (9th Cir 1993) (a civil detainer or hold filed by the INS is not an "untried indictment, information or complaint" under IAD). Plaintiff's motion/complaint/petition must be DISMISSED as legally frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Plaintiff's invocation of the court's habeas corpus jurisdiction does not compel a different result because it is well-established that a detainer letter alone does not sufficiently place an alien in INS custody to make habeas corpus available. See Garcia v. Taylor, 40 F.3d 299, 303 (9th Cir 1994); see also id at 303-04 (mandamus not available to expedite deportation proceedings).
The Clerk shall close the file and terminate all pending motions (see, e.g., doc #2) as moot.
SO ORDERED.