Hugo Rangel Resendiz v. Leonard Kovensky, Acting Director, Immigration and Naturalization Service

Good Law
416 F.3d 952·2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 12699·5 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5674
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 27, 200503-55136California4,026 words

Opinion

Opinion

Trott, J.

OVERVIEW

Hugo Rangel Resendiz appeals the district court’s dismissal of two petitions for habeas corpus — one under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 , naming the State of California as the respondent, and a second under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 .

We conclude that (1) Resendiz was not “in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court” when he filed his § 2254 petition, and he is not entitled to an exception from the in custody requirement; (2) the district court did not err in construing Resendiz’s § 2254 petition as a petition against the INS under § 2241 rather than as one for a writ of coram nobis; and (3) the enactments of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) do not change the long standing principle that a petitioner may not collaterally attack his state court conviction in a § 2241 petition against the INS. Accordingly, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

Resendiz was a lawful permanent resident when he pled guilty to narcotics offenses in the Orange County Superior Court on June 30, 1997.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.