United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Brownsville Division
PEDRO ANTONIO MORALES-BATRES, By His Next Friend, ANA JULIA JOVEL DE MORALES, Petitioner,
JANIE E. BENNET, Director, Port Isabel Detention Center, Respondent.
MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
Ignacio Torteya, III United States Magistrate Judge
Court is in receipt of the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Petition for
Habeas Corpus and accompanying Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order, and Renewed Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order, filed by Ana Julia Jovel de Morales on
behalf of her alleged husband, Pedro Antonio Morales-Batres
(hereinafter, Morales-Batres's “Petition, ”
“Motion, ” and “Renewed Motion, ”
respectively). Dkt. Nos. 1 and 2. For the reasons provided
below, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
civil action. It is, therefore, recommended that the Court:
(1) DISMISS Morales-Batres's Petition;
(2) DENY Morales-Batres's Motion and
Renewed Motion; and (3) DIRECT the Clerk of
the Court to close this case.
close of business on February 21, 2018, counsel for Ana Julia
Jovel de Morales filed Morales-Batres's Petition and
Motion. Dkt. Nos. 1 and 2. In his Motion, Morales-Batres
indicates that he is subject to a final order of removal from
the United States, and seeks a temporary restraining order
preventing that removal. Dkt. No. 2 at 1-2. Morales-Batres
claims that he has been wrongfully refused asylum and will
likely be tortured or killed if he is returned to his native
country of El Salvador. Dkt. No. 1 at 3-4.
compliance with the Court's Order dated February 22,
2018, Respondent Janie E. Bennet filed a
“Response” with accompanying exhibits addressing
Morales-Batres's Petition and Motion. Dkt. No. 7.
Bennet's Response confirms that Morales-Batres is under a
final order of removal, and states that this Court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over this case as a result.
Id. at 7; Dkt. No. 8-7 at 1. Bennet's Response
additionally states that Jovel de Morales has failed to
establish that she has standing to file a petition and motion
on Morales-Batres's behalf. Dkt. No. 7 at 7, note 8.
counsel, Jovel de Morales filed a Renewed Motion on February
23, 2018. Dkt. No. 9. In this Renewed Motion, Jovel de
Morales's counsel stated that he was unable to view
Bennet's Response because the Response was filed under
seal. Id. at 1. He then suggested that this case should
not be decided behind “a veil of secrecy” and
renewed his plea for a temporary restraining order.
Id. at 2. After the Clerk of the Court provided
instructions regarding how to access Bennet's Response,
Jovel de Morales's counsel was able to view Bennet's
Response. See Clerk's Entry dated February 23,
2018. This case is now ripe for a determination regarding
whether the Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction.
asserts that Jovel de Morales has failed to establish that
she possesses standing to file Morales-Batres's instant
Motion and Petition. Dkt. No. 7 at 7, note 8. Bennet notes
that Jovel de Morales has not shown that Morales-Batres is a
minor, an incompetent, or someone otherwise incapable of
pursuing his own claims for relief. Id. As Jovel de
Morales has not attempted to make this showing, and has not
identified any other basis for standing, she has not shown
that she is a real party in interest with standing to file a
motion or petition on Morales-Batres's behalf.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 17(c).
even if Jovel De Morales were to provide a basis for
standing, Morales-Batres is under a final order of removal.
See Dkt. No. 8-7 at 1. As such, Morales-Batres's
Petition and Motion are subject to 8 U.S.C. § 1252. In
relevant part, and as amended by the REAL ID Act,
§ 1252 provides:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (statutory or
nonstatutory), including section 2241 of Title 28, or any
other habeas corpus provision, and sections 1361 and 1651 of
such title, a petition for review filed with an
appropriate court of appeals in accordance with this
section shall be the sole and exclusive means for
judicial review of an order of removal entered or issued
under any provision of this chapter, except as provided
in subsection (e).
8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (emphasis added).
(e)(1) provides that no court may enter “declaratory,
injunctive, or other equitable relief in any action
pertaining to an order to exclude an alien in accordance with
section 1225(b)(1) of this title except as specifically
authorized in a subsequent paragraph of this
subsection.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(1). Section
Judicial review of any determination made under section
1225(b)(1) of this title is available in habeas corpus
proceedings, but ...