Sandoval-Campos v. Homeland Security

Background

Ronal-Danilo Sandoval-Campos, who was incarcerated at Sing Sing Correctional Facility, filed a submission described as a “Writ of Prohibition” under federal law. The court understood that submission as possibly challenging either an order of removal directing his deportation from the United States, his New York State conviction or sentence for which he was incarcerated, or both. A footnote states that he paid the filing fee for a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Challenge to the Order of Removal

The court ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to consider any challenge to the order of removal. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, the exclusive method for judicial review of an order of removal is a petition for review filed in the appropriate federal court of appeals, not a case in the district court. The petition generally must be filed within 30 days after the order becomes final, and available administrative remedies—including review by the Board of Immigration Appeals—must first be exhausted.

The court noted that Sandoval-Campos did not state when the order was issued, where the immigration court was located, whether he sought review by the Board of Immigration Appeals, or whether that Board issued a decision. Regardless, the district court held that it could not provide relief from the removal order.

Possible Challenge to the State Conviction or Sentence

To the extent Sandoval-Campos intended to challenge the state conviction or sentence underlying his custody, the court construed the submission as seeking relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. That statute allows a person in state custody to ask a federal court to decide whether the custody violates the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties.

The court granted Sandoval-Campos leave to file an amended § 2254 petition within 60 days of the order. The amended petition must identify the conviction and appellate proceedings, provide information about the timing of the state-court review, and explain the alleged legal violation and requested relief. The court stated that he would have one opportunity, within the applicable one-year limitations period, to file a § 2254 petition seeking a full decision on his habeas claims. He could instead ask to withdraw the action within the same 60-day period.

Disposition

The court did not decide the merits of any challenge to the state conviction or sentence. If Sandoval-Campos does not file an amended § 2254 petition or request withdrawal within the allowed period, the court will dismiss the action without prejudice. The court also stated that a certificate of appealability would not issue because he had not made a substantial showing that a constitutional right was denied. It certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to proceed without paying the appeal filing fees for an appeal.

Judge Laura Taylor Swain signed the order as Chief United States District Judge.