Azucena v. Department of Homeland Security
- Richard Seeborg
- 3:23-cv-00531
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
Judge Seeborg dismissed Azucena v. Department of Homeland Security because Azucena was not in custody, allowing him to bring a separate civil-rights action.
Caleb Azucena’s habeas case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but the court left him free to raise his claims in a separate federal civil-rights complaint.
What happened
In Azucena v. Department of Homeland Security, Caleb Azucena filed a petition challenging what he described as airport searches, seizures, inappropriate touching by border agents, travel restrictions, and the withholding of his passport.
The court explained that this type of custody challenge is available only to someone who is in custody when the case begins. Because Azucena was not in custody and was not challenging confinement, the court concluded it had no jurisdiction over the petition.
Judge Richard Seeborg dismissed the habeas action for lack of jurisdiction. The dismissal was without prejudice to Azucena raising his claims in a separate federal civil-rights complaint, and the court directed that the new complaint not be filed in this case.
The detailed version
- Azucena v. Department of Homeland Security · No. 3:23-cv-00531
- Richard Seeborg
- June 6, 2023
Background
Caleb Azucena filed this action as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a legal procedure used to challenge the validity or duration of a person’s custody. After reviewing the original and amended petitions, the court found that Azucena was not challenging any confinement and was not in custody.
The petitions instead raised claims about illegal searches and seizures at an unspecified airport and at San Francisco’s airport, as well as inappropriate touching by border agents. Azucena sought reinstatement of his travel rights and the return of his passport.
Ruling
The court held that a federal habeas petition is available only to a person who was in custody when the petition was filed. Because Azucena was not in custody, the court concluded that it had no jurisdiction over the petition.
The court dismissed the habeas action for want of jurisdiction. It stated that the dismissal was without prejudice to Azucena raising his claims through a federal civil-rights complaint against the federal employees from whom he sought relief. The court explained that such a complaint would be a new, separate lawsuit and directed Azucena not to file it in the habeas case. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment for the Department of Homeland Security and close the file.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.