Opinion
CASE NO.: 19-mj-10810-RBM-AJB-1
10-16-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE VALENCIA JR., Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO STAY WARRANT OF REMOVAL PENDING APPEAL AND ORDER DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION
(Docs 9 and 11)
Defendant was arrested on September 19, 2019 in the Southern District of California after he was indicted in the Northern District of Iowa on conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. A removal and identity hearing was held on October 4, 2019 by a Magistrate Judge in the Southern District of California, and Defendant was found to be the person charged in the Northern District of Iowa. On these findings, the Magistrate Judge ordered Defendant removed to the charging district by issuing a warrant of removal. (Doc. 10).
On October 9, 2019 Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal of the Magistrate Judge's Decision (Doc. 9) and Motion to Stay the Order (Warrant) of Removal (Doc. 10) pending the appeal in this case.
Appeals of removal orders are heard in the charging district not the district of arrest. U.S. v. Evans, 62 F.3d 1233 (9th Cir. 1995); U.S. v. Saldana-Beltran, 37 F. Supp. 3d 1180, 1184 (S.D. Cal 2014); U.S. v. Castellon, 2015 WL 11198777, *1 (S.D. Cal 2015).
There is no jurisdiction for a direct appeal of a district court's commitment order within the district of arrest on out of district warrants. Id., U.S. v. Rivero-Nunez, 605 F.2d 152 (5th Cir. 1979). The defendant may address all pertinent issues in the district where the charges are pending. Removal proceedings under the federal rules place jurisdiction with the magistrate judge and review of removal orders by a district judge would be a direct contradiction of congressional intent. United States v. Canada, 440 F. Supp. 22, 24 (N.D. III 1977). Given the stated purpose of the Magistrates Act, removal questions are of the type which Congress believed would be more efficiently handled by magistrate judges. Expeditious resolution of removal questions can only be guaranteed if the magistrate judge's disposition is final. United States v. Sheriffs, 64 F.R.D. 729 (E.D. Wis. 1974); Wright & Miller: Federal Prac. & Proc. s 654, § 654, Violations, Remedy and Appeal.
Therefore, without jurisdiction over the matter, this Court denies the motion for stay of removal and dismisses the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: October 16, 2019
/s/_________
Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia
United States District Judge