Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Doolan v. United States Attorney General

United States District Court, D. Arizona

September 19, 2016

Sonia Doolan, Petitioner,
v.
United States Attorney General, et al., Respondents.

          ORDER

          Honorable Steven P. Logan District Judge.

         Petitioner Sonia Doolan is presently detained by the United States Department of Homeland Security in the Eloy Detention Center in Eloy, Arizona. On December 17, 2015, she filed a pro se First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 8). Respondents filed an Answer on March 29, 2016 (Doc. 19), and on April 8, 2016, Petitioner filed a reply (Doc. 21). United States Magistrate Judge Michelle H. Burns has issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that the Court dismiss the petition. (Doc. 35.) For the following reasons, the Court accepts and adopts the R&R, and denies the petition.

         I. Background

         Petitioner does not object to the correctness of the factual background in the R&R, which the Court adopts and incorporates as follows:

Petitioner is a native and citizen of India, by virtue of her birth in Chandigash, India. (Exh 1, ¶ 2; Doc. 21 at 1.) On September 24, 2001, Petitioner was admitted to the United States at Houston, Texas, as a Non-Immigrant, and on November 8, 2005, Petitioner applied for adjustment of status and was adjusted to a Lawful Permanent Resident. (Exh. 1, ¶ 3.)
On March 26, 2014, Petitioner was convicted in the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, of four felony offenses committed on separate occasions: two counts of Taking Identity of Another, a class 4 felony - sentenced to 3 years' prison; one count of Fraudulent Schemes and Artifices, a class 2 felony - sentenced to 4 years' probation after release from prison; and one count of Aggravated Taking Identity of Another, a class 3 felony - sentenced to 4 years' probation after release from prison. (Exh. 1, ¶¶ 4-7.)
On April 4, 2014, Petitioner was encountered by officers of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) officers at the Arizona Department of Corrections Alhambra Intake and Reception Facility, Phoenix, Arizona, pursuant to administrative charges related to her convictions for the above offenses. (Exh. 1, ¶ 8.) On July 7, 2014, Petitioner was served with a Form I-862, Notice to Appear, charging removability under Section 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) of the INA, as an alien, who, any time after admission, has been convicted of two crimes involving moral turpitude not arising out of a single scheme of criminal misconduct. (Id., ¶ 9.)
On August 11, 2014, ICE agents placed an Immigration Detainer, Form-I-247, with the Perryville State Prison in regards to Petitioner. (Exh. 1, ¶ 10.) On August 16, 2015, Petitioner was released to ICE custody and transferred to the Phoenix Field Office, Phoenix, Arizona. A custody determination was made that Petitioner would be detained by the Department of Homeland Security pending a final determination of her case. (Id., ¶ 11.) On August 17, 2015, Petitioner was transported to the EDC, in Eloy, Arizona, for removal proceedings. (Id., ¶ 12.)
On September 10, 2015, Petitioner appeared pro se before an Immigration Judge (“IJ”) for a bond hearing. The IJ reset the case for October 19, 2015. (Exh. 1, ¶ 13.) On that date, Petitioner again appeared pro se, and the IJ denied a custody redetermination, stating no jurisdiction. (Id., ¶ 15.) A Custody Redetermination hearing was scheduled in Immigration Court for March 16, 2016. (Doc. 16 at 1, 3.) However, Petitioner refused to attend, and filed a motion in Immigration Court to cancel the bond hearing, indicating that she “does not understand th[e] process and refuse[s] to participate in this Farce.” (Doc. 16 at 4.)

(Doc. 35 at 2-3.)

         II. Standard of Review

         A district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). When a party files a timely objection to an R&R, the district judge reviews de novo those portions of the R&R that have been “properly objected to.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). A proper objection requires specific written objections to the findings and recommendations in the R&R. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). It follows that the Court need not conduct any review of portions to which no specific objection has been made. See Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121; see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (discussing the inherent purpose of limited review is judicial economy). Further, a petitioner is not entitled as of right to de novo review of evidence or arguments which are raised for the first time in an objection to the R&R, and the Court's decision to consider them is discretionary. United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 621-622 (9th Cir. 2000).

         III. Discussion

         Petitioner objects “to the Court's recommendation that petitioner's Habeas Corpus [petition] lack[s] merit.” (Doc. 37 at 1.) While the remainder of Petitioner's objection is formatted by claim, her arguments are difficult to understand and do not point to any specific flaw in the Magistrate Judge's analysis or findings. Rather, Petitioner appears to provide a general reiteration of the claims that were addressed by the Magistrate Judge, but without any reference to the R&R. Because Petitioner's objection does not identify with any specificity the portion of the R&R to which she objects, the objection serves to have the same effect as if she had failed to object entirely. See Gutierrez v. Flannican, 2006 WL 2816599, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 29, 2006) (where a Petitioner does not identify which of the Magistrate Judge's findings he or she specifically disagrees with, the general objections to the R&R “are tantamount to no objection at all.”). As a result, the Court has no obligation to review Plaintiff's general objection to the R&R. See Thomas, 474 U.S. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.