Alexandre v. Covello
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Alexandre, who is now in federal custody at the Otay 1 || Mesa Deten
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- William Q. Hayes (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Anthony Alexandre, a state prisoner, filed a motion in his state habeas corpus case seeking a 'Joseph hearing' to challenge his mandatory federal immigration detention. The court denied the motion, ruling that challenges to federal detention must be brought in a separate action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, not within a state habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Joseph Hearing denied“Alexandre’s Motion for Joseph Hearing (ECF No. 13) is denied.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the motion was procedurally improper because it was filed in the wrong case. A state habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is limited to challenging the legality of state custody. The petitioner's challenge to federal immigration detention is a separate matter governed by 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Therefore, the district court lacked the proper procedural vehicle to address the merits of the detention challenge in this specific action. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly distinguishes between the scope of a § 2254 petition (state custody) and a § 2241 petition (federal custody). By denying the motion on procedural grounds rather than the merits, the court avoids potential jurisdictional issues and directs the petitioner to the correct legal vehicle for his claim.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY ALEXANDRE, Case No.: 3:19-cv-1563-WQH-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. 14 15 PARTICK COVELLO, Warden, 16 Respondent. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 On August 19, 2020, Petitioner Anthony Alexandre, a state prisoner proceeding pro 19 se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1). 20 In the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Alexandre challenged his state court conviction 21 for corporal injury to a spouse or roommate in violation of § 273.5(a) of the California 22 Penal Code; stalking in violation of section 646.9(a) of the California Penal Code; false 23 imprisonment by violence, menace, fraud or deceit in violation of sections 236 and 237(a) 24 of the California Penal Code; and attempting to dissuade a witness from reporting a crime 25 in violation of section 136.1(b)(1) of the California Penal Code. 26 On March 6, 2020, the Court denied Alexandre’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 27 (ECF No. 11). On March 24, 2020, Alexandre filed a Motion for Joseph Hearing pursuant 28 to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). (ECF No. 13). Alexandre, who is now in federal custody at the Otay 1 || Mesa Detention Center, moves the Court for a “Joseph [h]earing” to determine “whether 2 not Petitioner is currently being properly held in detention... .” (/d. at 1). Alexandre 3 ||contends that he is not properly detained in federal custody because his state court 4 ||conviction “does not satisfy the criteria for deportation proceedings” under 8 U.S.C. § 5 || 1226(c) that a non-citizen’s criminal history include a crime that “involv[es] moral 6 || turpitude.” (/d. at 3). 7 “Section 1226(c) requires that the Attorney General detain any non-citizen who is 8 ||inadmissible or deportable because of his criminal history upon that person’s release from 9 || imprisonment, pending proceedings to remove him from the United States.” Rodriguez v. 10 || Robbins, 804 F. 3d 1060, 1078 (9th Cir. 2015), overruled on other grounds by Jennings v. 11 || Rodriguez, 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018). An individual detained under § 1226(c) may request a 12 “Joseph hearing” before an immigration judge to determine whether the individual is 13 || properly included in the category of non-citizens subject to mandatory detention based on 14 || the individual’s criminal history. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19(h)(2)(i1); see generally, In re 15 || Joseph, 22 I. & N. Dec. 799 (BIA 1999). 16 Alexandre’s Motion for Joseph Hearing, challenging his federal detention, 1s 17 ||improperly raised in this action on his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, challenging his 18 court conviction. Any challenge to Alexandre’s federal detention must be filed as a 19 petition and comply with all procedural and jurisdictional requirements of 28 U.S.C. 20 || § 2241. Alexandre’s Motion for Joseph Hearing (ECF No. 13) is denied. 21!) Dated: April 27, 2020 Nitta Ke lagen 22 Hon. William Q. Hayes 3 United States District Court 24 25 26 27 28