955 F.3d 759
9th Cir.2020Background
- Ricardo Lopez-Marroquin, an immigration detainee at Otay Mesa, moved the Ninth Circuit for immediate release under the All Writs Act, citing generalized COVID-19 risks.
- The Ninth Circuit construed the emergency All Writs Act motion as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
- The panel transferred the motion, the opposition, and the reply to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California for hearing and determination.
- The Ninth Circuit majority expressly declined to decide whether the All Writs Act authorizes release and urged the district court to address the matter expeditiously.
- Judge Callahan dissented: she would have held the All Writs Act cannot be used to order release, stressed that habeas is the adequate remedy, and warned against using the Act to circumvent statutory jurisdictional limits.
- The Ninth Circuit retained appellate jurisdiction and left Lopez’s petition for review on the calendar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the All Writs Act authorizes immediate release from immigration detention | Lopez: AWA empowers court to order release now due to COVID-19 | Gov: AWA cannot enlarge jurisdiction; AWA not a substitute for habeas | Majority: Did not reach AWA merits; construed motion as §2241 habeas and transferred to district court. Dissent: AWA does not authorize release. |
| Whether habeas under §2241 is an adequate alternative remedy | Lopez: Filing habeas would be counterproductive during pandemic | Gov: §2241 habeas is the proper and available remedy; district courts handle factual issues | Held: Court transferred the matter under §2241(b); dissent emphasized habeas adequacy. |
| Whether generalized COVID-19 concerns justify relief | Lopez: General pandemic risk warrants release | Gov: Executive has mitigation protocols; courts lack expertise to manage detention epidemiology | Held: Majority left merits to district court; dissent found generalized claims insufficient and cautioned against broad judicial intervention. |
| Proper forum for habeas challenges to immigration detention | Lopez: Filed in Ninth Circuit via AWA motion | Gov: Jurisdiction for core habeas is the district of confinement | Held: Transfer to Southern District of California under §2241 and Rumsfeld; Ninth Circuit retained appellate jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196 (9th Cir. 2011) (aliens may bring collateral detention challenges via habeas separate from petition for review)
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement are heard in the district of confinement)
- Clinton v. Goldsmith, 526 U.S. 529 (1999) (All Writs Act does not enlarge a court's jurisdiction; it is in aid of existing jurisdiction)
- Jackson v. Vasquez, 1 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 1993) (AWA orders must preserve jurisdiction that the court has from an independent legal source)
- Matus-Leva v. United States, 287 F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 2002) (AWA is not a substitute when a more usual remedy, like habeas or other postconviction relief, is available)
- United States v. Valdez-Pacheco, 237 F.3d 1077 (9th Cir. 2001) (rejecting extraordinary writ as substitute when statutory remedies exist)
- Lolong v. Gonzales, 484 F.3d 1173 (9th Cir. 2007) (INA limits circuit-court review to final orders of removal)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (courts should exercise restraint in second-guessing prison administration)
- Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701 (9th Cir. 2010) (caution about appellate authority to sua sponte order release or bail in petition for review)