1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 CARLOS A. LANDEROS, No. ED CV 25-250-TJH(E)

12 Petitioner,

13 v. ORDER DISMISSING “PETITION FOR

14 DONALD TRUMP U.S.A PRESIDENT, ET AL., WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS” WITHOUT

15 Respondents. PREJUDICE

16

17 18 PROCEEDINGS 19 20 The “Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus” (“the Petition”), filed January 29, 2025, represents 21 Petitioner’s most recent attempt to overturn a 2019 immigration order of removal and subsequent 22 decisions of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denying relief to Petitioner. As discussed below, the 23 Court lacks jurisdiction over the Petition. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 BACKGROUND 2 3 In dismissing a previous habeas petition filed by Petitioner in 2024, this Court stated: 4 5 In November of 2019, Mr. Landeros filed a petition for review in the United 6 States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, seeking the Circuit’s review of a “final 7 order of removal entered by the Adelanto Immigration Court in Adelanto, California, 8 dated 11/8/2019” (Ninth Circuit Case No. 19-72855, Doc. 1-4, p. 2). In that proceeding, 9 which lasted more than four years, Petitioner argued, inter alia, that immigration 10 proceedings had violated his constitutional rights, including his due process rights. On 11 March 29, 2024, the Ninth Circuit filed an unpublished “Memorandum,” denying Mr. 12 Landeros’ petition for review (Ninth Circuit Case No. 19-72855, Doc. 41-1). 13 14 (“Order Dismissing Petition Without Prejudice,” filed May 1, 2024 in Landeros, et al. v. Biden, ED CV 15 24-842-TJH(E), pp. 2-3). 16 17 The present Petition again invites this Court’s review of the decision of the Immigration Court 18 and the decision of the Ninth Circuit in Ninth Circuit Case No. 19-72855 (Petition, p. 13). The present 19 Petition also invites this Court’s review of other Ninth Circuit decisions, including a recent decision 20 dismissing as “frivolous” an appeal from this Court’s judgment in Landeros v. Biden, et al., CV 24-688- 21 PSG(DTBx) (id.; “Order,” filed January 23, 2025, in Ninth Circuit Case No. 24-5484). 22 23 As the Court previously advised Petitioner in Landeros, et al. v. Biden, ED CV 24-842-TJH(E), 24 this Court lacks jurisdiction to review orders of removal: 25 26 The REAL ID Act of 2005 (“the Act”), signed into law May 11, 2005, generally 27 provides that “a petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals . . . shall 1 § 1252(a)(5) (as amended by section 106(a) of the Act). The Act “eliminated district 2 court habeas jurisdiction over orders of removal and vested jurisdiction to review such 3 orders exclusively in the courts of appeals.” Puri v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th 4 Cir. 2006) (citation omitted); accord Paz v. California, 2019 WL 1581418, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 5 Feb. 11, 2019), adopted, 2019 WL 5693766 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2019). Thus, the Act 6 “makes the circuit courts the ‘sole’ judicial body able to review challenges to final orders 7 of deportation, exclusion, or removal.” Alvarez-Barajas v. Gonzales, 418 F.3d 1050, 8 1052 (9th Cir. 2005); 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a). Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction over the 9 Petition. Dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. See Iasu v. Smith, 511 F.3d 881, 10 888-89 (9th Cir. 2007) (transfer to the Ninth Circuit of a habeas petition filed after May 11 11, 2005 is not an option). 12 13 (“Order Dismissing Petition Without Prejudice,” filed May 1, 2024 in Landeros, et al. v. Biden, ED CV 14 24-842-TJH(E), pp. 3-4). 15 16 This Court also lacks jurisdiction to review decisions of the Ninth Circuit. See Insurance Group 17 Committee v. Denver & Rio Grande Western R.R. Co., 329 U.S. 607, 612 (1947) (“When matters are 18 decided by an appellate court, its rulings, unless reversed by it or a superior court, bind the lower 19 court.”); Feldman v. Henman, 815 F.2d 1318, 1322 (9th Cir. 1987) (district court cannot entertain 20 petition seeking to undo the Ninth Circuit’s resolution of a matter previously addressed to the Ninth 21 Circuit); United States v. Sanders, 142 F. Supp. 638, 641 (D. Md. 1956) (district court cannot remedy by 22 collateral review “any alleged or suggested error of the Court of Appeals”). 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 ORDER 2 3 For all of the foregoing reasons, IT Is ORDERED that the Petition is dismissed without prejudice. 4

S LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

6 7 DATED: March 7, 2025. 8 _———— 10 ERRY J. HATTER, JR.

NITBD STATES MAGISTRATESUDGE

12 || PRESENTED this 4th day of 13 February, 2025, by: 14 15 J__-//

CHARLES F. EICK

16 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28