Bailey v. Borda
- Charles Breyer
- 3:24-cv-02307
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bailey v. Borda, Judge Breyer dismissed the petition because an ICE detainer did not place Bailey in federal custody and granted his fee-waiver request.
Jasper W. Bailey’s habeas petition and two related motions were dismissed; his application to proceed without paying the filing fee was granted. E. Borda was the respondent identified in the case.
What happened
Bailey v. Borda involved Jasper W. Bailey, a state prisoner serving multiple state sentences, who challenged an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer through a petition for federal habeas relief. He represented himself and also asked to proceed without paying the filing fee.
The court explained that federal habeas relief is available only when the person is in custody when the petition is filed. An immigration detainer expresses ICE’s interest and tells prison officials that a future deportation decision may be made, but it does not require them to hold the prisoner for ICE.
Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed the habeas petition for lack of custody-based jurisdiction. The court also dismissed two related motions as moot and/or for lack of merit, and granted Bailey’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee based solely on his affidavit of poverty.
The detailed version
- Bailey v. Borda · No. 3:24-cv-02307
- Charles Breyer
- July 2, 2024
Background
Jasper W. Bailey, identified in the caption as G60744, was serving multiple state court sentences at the Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California. He filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 challenging an immigration detainer filed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He also applied to proceed without paying the filing fee based on financial hardship.
Court’s Analysis
The court stated that federal habeas relief is available only to a person who is “in custody” when the petition is filed. The court treated that requirement as jurisdictional, meaning the court could not decide the petition unless the custody requirement was met.
The court relied on precedent holding that an immigration detainer does not place a person in Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody for purposes of habeas relief. According to the court, a detainer expresses ICE’s interest in the prisoner and notifies prison officials that a future deportation decision will be made, but it does not require prison officials to keep the prisoner for ICE.
Ruling
The court dismissed the petition challenging the immigration detainer for lack of “in custody” jurisdiction. It also dismissed the two pending miscellaneous motions for related habeas relief as moot and/or for lack of merit. The court granted Bailey’s application to proceed without paying the filing fee based solely on his affidavit of poverty. The clerk was instructed to terminate the motions listed as ECF items 2, 3, and 5.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.