Summary
noting that even when a district court has jurisdiction over a habeas petition challenging an underlying state criminal conviction, a petitioner in immigration detention must "request a stay of his order of removal from the appropriate court of appeals"
Summary of this case from Martin v. U.S. Immigration & Customs EnforcementOpinion
Civil Action No. 06-10457-WGY.
March 23, 2006
ORDER
Alberto R. Tejada commenced this action on March 13, 2006 and here seeks the Writ of Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254, on grounds familiar to this Court. He claims that he was deprived of his constitutionally guaranteed Sixth Amendment right to counsel in the courts of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Unfortunately, Mr. Tejada is an immigrant alien. Without public discussion or debate, Congress has successfully and severely restricted the rights of such individuals to seek the Great Writ,see REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 103-13, Div. B., 119 Stat. 231, 302 (May 11, 2005); Enwonwu v. Chertoff, 376 F. Supp. 2d 42, 78-85 (2005), and this Court has been deprived of subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this cause. See Walters v. Chertoff, No. 3:05 CV 01672 RNC, 46238855, 2005 WL 3416124 (D. Conn. Dec. 12, 2005); Nnabuihe v. Bureau of Immigration Customs, No. 3:05-CV-1523-N, 2005 WL 2545284 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2005); Flores-Diaz v. United States, No. 2:05-CV-710 TS, 2005 WL 2456983 (D. Utah Oct. 5, 2005);Griffith v. Department of Homeland Sec., No. 05-CV-0644S, 2005 WL 2338866 (W.D.N.Y. Sept. 21, 2005); Aime v. Department of Homeland Sec., No. 05-CV-0544F, 2005 WL 1971894 (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 16, 2005); Robinson v. Mule, No. 05-CV-0536A (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2005); McDonald v. Mule, No. 05-CV-6367CJS(FE) (W.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2005); Munoz v. Gonzalez, No. 05 Civ. 6056(SHS) (S.D.N.Y. July 11, 2005).
Accordingly, this case is DISMISSED sua sponte, without prejudice to re-filing in the appropriate Circuit Court of Appeals.
SO ORDERED.