Mavungo v. Sessions

District Court, S.D. California · 3:19-cv-01431 · 2019-09-10 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Larry Alan Burns (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-14T00:08Z · confidence high

Petitioner Thomas Mavungo filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking asylum and to stop his removal, after having already pursued an unsuccessful petition for review. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to review the final order of removal and directed the Clerk to notify Mavungo's attorney of the order and the petitioner's response.

What the court decided	The model
Determination that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the final order of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 “This Court has no jurisdiction to review final orders of removal under § 2241.”	agree with court The court correctly applies the principle established in Puri v. Gonzales and Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales that federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal via habeas corpus under § 2241 when the petitioner has already sought review by the court of appeals. The order notes the petitioner 'has apparently already sought removal by a petition for review, unsuccessfully,' which triggers the jurisdictional bar. The citation to Kokkonen and Spokeo regarding the burden of establishing jurisdiction is legally sound, though Spokeo is primarily an Article III standing case, its general principle that the party invoking jurisdiction must establish it is applicable.
Direction to the Clerk to forward a copy of the order and the petitioner's response to the identified attorney, Luis Macias “The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this order and of Mr. Mavungo’s most recent response Mr. Macias at the physical and email addresses provided in his state bar profile.”	agree with court This is a procedural directive to ensure the attorney is aware of the court's jurisdictional ruling and the petitioner's non-compliant response. It is a reasonable administrative step given the petitioner's request for someone to visit him and the identification of counsel.

What the court decided

The model

Determination that the court lacks jurisdiction to review the final order of removal under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

“This Court has no jurisdiction to review final orders of removal under § 2241.”

agree with court
The court correctly applies the principle established in *Puri v. Gonzales* and *Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales* that federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to review final orders of removal via habeas corpus under § 2241 when the petitioner has already sought review by the court of appeals. The order notes the petitioner 'has apparently already sought removal by a petition for review, unsuccessfully,' which triggers the jurisdictional bar. The citation to *Kokkonen* and *Spokeo* regarding the burden of establishing jurisdiction is legally sound, though *Spokeo* is primarily an Article III standing case, its general principle that the party invoking jurisdiction must establish it is applicable.

Direction to the Clerk to forward a copy of the order and the petitioner's response to the identified attorney, Luis Macias

“The Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this order and of Mr. Mavungo’s most recent response Mr. Macias at the physical and email addresses provided in his state bar profile.”

agree with court
This is a procedural directive to ensure the attorney is aware of the court's jurisdictional ruling and the petitioner's non-compliant response. It is a reasonable administrative step given the petitioner's request for someone to visit him and the identification of counsel.

The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the jurisdictional bar under § 2241 based on the petitioner's prior unsuccessful petition for review. It cites the correct Ninth Circuit precedent (*Puri* and *Alvarez-Barajas*) and general Supreme Court principles on the burden of establishing jurisdiction. The procedural directive to notify counsel is appropriate. The order is concise and directly addresses the jurisdictional issue without delving into the merits, which is proper given the lack of jurisdiction.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS MAVUNGO, Case No.: 19cv1431-LAB (JLB)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DIRECTING 13 v. NOTIFICATION OF PETITIONER’S ATTORNEY 14 JEFFERSON SESSIONS III, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner Thomas Mavungo (also identified as Thomas Mavungu or 19 Mavungo Thomas) filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 20 § 2241, asking that he be granted asylum and that his order of removal not be 21 carried out. He has apparently already sought removal by a petition for review, 22 unsuccessfully. 23 This Court has no jurisdiction to review final orders of removal under § 2241. 24 See Puri v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2006); Alvarez-Barajas v. 25 Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005). Federal jurisdiction is presumed 26 to be lacking, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994), 27 and the party invoking the Court’s jurisdiction must establish it. See Spokeo, Inc. 28 v. Robins, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1547 (2016).The Court therefore ordered Mr. Mavungo 1 ||to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The 2 Court instructed him to address jurisdiction, not the merits of his asylum claim. 3 Mavungo has now filed his response, which addresses only the merits of his 4 ||claim. He asks that someone come visit him to discuss his case. The response 5 ||identifies Mavungo’s attorney or former attorney as Luis Macias. The Clerk is 6 || directed to forward a copy of this order and of Mr. Mavungo’s most recent response 7 Mr. Macias at the physical and email addresses provided in his state bar profile. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 ||Dated: September 10, 2019 11 ( iM 4. JB wy 12 Hon. Lafry Alan Burns 43 Chief United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28