*1
*2
Pursuant to the Court's 8/11/08 Order, the magistrate judge issued a briefing order that set filing deadlines for Respondents' Answer and Petitioner's Reply. (8/18/08 Order (AN) (dkt #4).) In accordance with the briefing order, Respondents filed a timely Answer (dkt #5). Respondents contend the Petition should be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the final order of removal or Petitioner's other claims because of the jurisdiction stripping provisions of 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (a) (5) as amended by the REAL ID Act of 2005, Pub.L.No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 231, 310-11. (Answer at 2.) Respondents also note that, on August 28, 2008, Petitioner was released from custody with a G4S monitoring device, commonly referred to as an ankle bracelet. (Id. note 1.) Petitioner has not filed a Reply and her time to do so has long since expired.
II. DISCUSSION
A district court must dismiss an action " the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
The Court finds Petitioner and her retained counsel never filed a Reply because Respondents correctly assert the REAL ID Act strips this Court of jurisdiction to consider her Petition, and that a petition for review filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is her sole means of challenging her final removal order, deportation, or exclusion. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5); Martinez-Rosas v. Gonzales, 424 F.3d 926, 928-29 (9th Cir. 2005). Habeas petitions challenging final deportation or removal orders that are filed with district courts after the Act's effective date of May 11, 2005, must be dismissed. Puri v. Gonzales, 464 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2006).
*3