Pak

Pak v. Bonnar

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 2, 20203:19-cv-08294California422 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

INTRODUCTION

15 Petitioner, a detainee of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) pursuant to 16 a removal order, filed this pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 17 2241. His native country, Cambodia, will not allow ICE to return him there. Therefore, ICE 18 has continued his detention indefinitely, which he challenges in the instant petition. He also 19 seeks to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant.

DISCUSSION

21

A. STANDARD OF REVIEW

A district court may entertain a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the 23 execution of a federal sentence only on the ground that the sentence is being executed "in 24 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); 25 United States v. Giddings, 740 F.2d 770, 772 (9th Cir. 1984). The court should "award the writ 26 or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, 27 unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled 28 B. LEGAL CLAIM When liberally construed, the petition states a cognizable claim for habeas relief. …

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.