United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
CARRILLO RAMIREZ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Special Order 3-251, this habeas case has been
referred for findings, conclusions, and recommendation.
Before the Court are the petitioner's Emergency Stay
of Deportation and Duplicate of Emmergency Stay
(sic),, received on February 4, 2019 (docs. 12, 13), and
Emergency State of Deportation, received on February
5, 2019 (doc. 16). Based on the relevant findings and
applicable law, the motions should be
Mrina (Petitioner), a citizen of Tanzania detained by the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Prairieland
Detention Center, filed a civil action against ICE and ICE
property manager Mr. Tucker. (No. 3:18-CV-3400-L.) He alleged
that he was detained on July 23, 2007, for overstaying his
visa, and that on May 11, 2009, he was transferred from the
Haskell Detention Center to Dallas County jail without his
property, which included pants, a shirt, shoes, a watch,
socks, and eleven legal diskettes. He claimed that ICE
officials confiscated other property of his at the Dallas
County jail, including his birth certificate, passport,
“legal paper works, ” car titles, receipts,
business letters, and bibles. He was released on June 18,
2010, but ICE was not able to locate his property. Mr. Tucker
gave Petitioner a tort claim form that he filed on June 7,
2011. When he inquired about the status of his tort claim, he
was told that ICE could not comment on the ongoing case.
November 15, 2018, Petitioner went to ICE for a supervision
visit and was detained. On November 21, 2018, an ICE
deportation officer gave him a travel document to fill out
and sign, and Petitioner said that he would talk with his
attorney. He asked the officer about his tort claim, but the
officer said that he was not aware of that. Petitioner told
the officer that he had informed ICE that he feared
prosecution in Tanzania, and that he had denounced his
citizenship due to fear of torture. On December 11, 2018, the
officer said that he obtained Petitioner's
“traveling documents.” Petitioner asked about his
tort claim, and he was told that he could “fight”
it from Tanzania.
Petitioner sought to be released from detention and to have
his removal be stopped until the conclusion of his tort
claim, his challenge to his detention pending removal from
the United States was construed as raising habeas claims
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The habeas claims were severed
from the civil action and opened in this habeas case.
(See doc. 6.)
motion alleges that he has been informed that he will soon be
removed from the United States. (See doc. 13 at 1.)
He seeks an order staying his removal so that he may litigate
his civil action in No. 3:18-CV-3400-L and pursue relief
regarding his removal through the immigration judge.
(See doc. 12 at 3.)
courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only
that power authorized by Constitution and statute, which is
not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)
(citations omitted). They “must presume that a suit
lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of
establishing federal jurisdiction rests on the party seeking
the federal forum.” Howery v. Allstate Ins.
Co., 243 F.3d 912, 916 (5th Cir. 2001). They have
“a continuing obligation to examine the basis for
jurisdiction.” See MCG, Inc. v. Great W.
Energy Corp., 896 F.2d 170, 173 (5th Cir. 1990).
asks that his pending removal be stayed. A request for a stay
of removal is treated as a request for an injunction. See
Idokogi v. Ashcroft, 66 Fed.Appx. 526 (5th Cir. 2003);
Ignacio v. INS, 955 F.2d 295, 299 n.5 (5th Cir.
1992). Title 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) provides that:
Except as provided in this section and 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, no court
shall have jurisdiction to hear any cause or claim by or on
behalf of any alien arising from the decision or action by
the Attorney General to commence proceedings, adjudicate
cases, or execute removal orders against any alien under this
Under § 1252(g), a district court lacks jurisdiction to
stay an order of removal. Idokogi, 66 Fed.Appx. 526.
Because this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the injunctive
relief sought by Petitioner, the motions for a stay of
removal should be denied. See Fabuluje v. Immigration and
Naturalization Agency, 244 F.3d 133 (5th Cir.
2000) (affirming the district court's denial of
injunctive relief for lack of jurisdiction under §