From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sia v. Ice Enforcement Removal Operation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
May 21, 2013
1:13-CV-00742-BAM-HC (E.D. Cal. May. 21, 2013)

Opinion


ANTONIO SIA, Petitioner, v. ICE ENFORCEMENT REMOVAL OPERATION, Respondent. No. 1:13-CV-00742-BAM-HC United States District Court, E.D. California. May 21, 2013

          ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO SERVE DOCUMENTS ON RESPONDENT

          BARBARA A. McAULIFFE, Magistrate Judge.

         Petitioner is detained by the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE") and is proceeding with a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

         In the petition filed, Petitioner alleges that his detention pending removal, which has endured for over six months, is indefinite and punitive in nature, thus violating Petitioner's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Petitioner also asserts that ICE did not give him any custody review.

         Because Petitioner may be entitled to relief if the claimed violations are proved, Respondent IS ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted. Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; see Rule 1(b), Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(a)(2). Respondent SHALL INCLUDE a copy of the relevant portions of Petitioner's Alien File and any and all other documentation relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the petition. Rule 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the event the Petitioner is released from ICE custody during the pendency of this Petition, the parties SHALL notify the Court by filing a Motion to Dismiss the Petition or other proper pleading. Should the parties fail to notify the Court that Petitioner has been released, the parties may be subject to sanctions pursuant to the inherent power of the Court to issue sanctions in appropriate cases. See Local Rule 110.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. Respondent is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted. The Return to the Order to Show Cause is due within FORTY-FIVE (45) days of the date of service of this order. Petitioner may file a Traverse to the Return within TEN (10) days of the date the Return to the Order to Show Cause is filed with the Court.

2. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to SERVE a copy of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on the United States Attorney.

         The Court has determined that this matter is suitable for decision without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 230(l). As such, the matter will be taken under submission following the filing of Petitioner's Traverse or the expiration of the time for filing the Traverse. All other briefing in this action is suspended.

         IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Sia v. Ice Enforcement Removal Operation

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California
May 21, 2013
1:13-CV-00742-BAM-HC (E.D. Cal. May. 21, 2013)
Case details for

Sia v. Ice Enforcement Removal Operation

Case Details

Full title:ANTONIO SIA, Petitioner, v. ICE ENFORCEMENT REMOVAL OPERATION, Respondent.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, E.D. California

Date published: May 21, 2013

Citations

1:13-CV-00742-BAM-HC (E.D. Cal. May. 21, 2013)