Opinion
Arnoldo Antonio Garcia, Petitioner, Pro se, Adelanto, CA.
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. Arthur Nakazato, United States Magistrate Judge.
ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS PETITION
Arthur Nakazato, United States Magistrate Judge
I. BACKGROUND
Amoldo Antonio Garcia (" Petitioner") is currently in immigration detention at the Adelanto Detention Center (" Adelanto") (reg. no. A073929240). He was taken into immigration custody on June 1, 2012, and although he fails to provide further details, he has apparently been found to be a removable alien, which he is not challenging.
On June 4, 2014, Petitioner was denied release on bond after an immigration court presumably conducted a custody redetermination hearing. Petitioner appealed that decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (" BIA"), and on August 28, 2014, the BIA denied his appeal. (Pet. at 3.)
On September 15, 2014, Petitioner filed the pending Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (" Petition"), raising two claims: (1) he was improperly denied release on bond because he is " not a flight risk or a danger to the community, and there are no facts [on which] to base this determination"; and (2) the authorities at Adelanto refuse to transport him to the state superior court so he can ostensibly withdraw a plea to a state offense, which Petitioner claims " caused me to be in Immigration Custody in the first place." (Pet. at 7-8.)
For the reasons discussed below, the Petition is dismissed.
II. DISCUSSION
A. Ground One
Federal courts are always under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction, ... and a federal court may not entertain an action over which it has no jurisdiction." Hernandez v. Campbell, 204 F.3d 861, 865 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations and quotation marks omitted); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (" If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."). Here, the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider ground one, as Petitioner is specifically challenging the factual basis for the denial of his release on bond, and as it concerns the apprehension and detention of aliens, " discretionary decisions granting or denying bond are not subject to judicial review." Prieto-Romero v. Clark, 534 F.3d 1053, 1058 (9th Cir. 2008); 8 U.S.C. § 1226(e). Further, while § 1226(e) " does not limit habeas jurisdiction over constitutional claims or questions of law, " Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1202 (9th Cir. 2011), Petitioner has not made any such claim here, but has instead only challenged the discretionary ruling that he is a flight risk and/or a danger to the community. (Pet. at 7-8.) Consequently, his only recourse was to appeal the decision to the BIA, which he has done, and that decision is not reviewable. Prieto-Romero, 534 F.3d at 1058.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain ground one.
B. Ground Two
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (" Habeas Rules"), requires a district court to dismiss a petition without ordering a responsive pleading where " it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Habeas Rule 4. Further, although the pending Petition was filed by an immigration detainee pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, Habeas Rule 1(b) permits this Court to " apply any or all of these rules" to any habeas petition, even if the petition is not filed pursuant to § 2254. See Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269-70 (9th Cir. 1989) (affirming district court's dismissal of a § 2241 petition under Habeas Rules 1 (b) and 4).
As stated above, in ground two Petitioner complains the authorities at Adelanto refuse to transport him to the state superior court so he can withdraw a plea. (Pet. at 8.) But, a habeas corpus action is only the proper mechanism for an individual to challenge the fact or duration of his confinement; a civil rights action is the proper mechanism for challenging the conditions of his confinement. Crawford v. Bell, 599 F.2d 890, 891-92 (9th Cir. 1979); Tucker v. Carlson, 925 F.2d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1990).
The Court finds ground two attacks neither the legality nor the duration of Petitioner's confinement, but rather the conditions of his confinement, so a habeas petition is not the proper mechanism for bringing this claim. Crawford, 599 F.2d at 891-92; Tucker, 925 F.2d at 332.
Moreover, while this Court has limited discretion to convert the pending Petition to a civil rights action, see Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U.S. 249, 251, 92 S.Ct. 407, 30 L.Ed.2d 418 (1971), overruled on other grounds by Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81, 126 S.Ct. 2378, 165 L.Ed.2d 368 (2006), the Court finds it would be inappropriate to do so in light of the considerable procedural and substantive differences between habeas corpus and civil rights matters as applied to this action. For example, civil rights actions under Bivens are subject to a $350 filing fee, as compared to the substantially lower $5 filing fee for habeas petitions. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Additionally, unlike habeas actions, individuals seeking to bring civil rights complaints are required to pay the full filing fee even if they qualify for in forma pauperis status. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1); Naddi v. Hill, 106 F.3d 275, 277 (9th Cir. 1997). Moreover, in light of the specific, mandatory exhaustion requirements in civil rights actions, see 42 U.S.C. § 1997e; Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 532, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002); Ngo, 548 U.S. at 85, the Court-approved civil rights complaint form, which requires an individual to " attach copies of papers related to the grievance procedure, " is essential to ensure that an inmate or detainee has complied with those requirements. See Civil Rights Complaint Form CV-66, page 3. The Court finds it is inappropriate to construe the Petition as a civil rights complaint and declines to do so.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, this Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of ground one, and ground two is subject to summary dismissal because it was improperly raised in a § 2241 habeas petition. Consequently, the reference to the magistrate judge is vacated and the Petition is dismissed. A judgment of dismissal of the entire action shall be entered accordingly, and all pending motions are denied as moot and terminated.
JUDGMENT
IT IS HEREBY ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed for the reasons set forth in the related Order Dismissing Habeas Petition.