United States District Court, D. Nevada
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II United States District Judge
has paid the filing fee. The court has reviewed his petition
for a writ of habeas corpus, and the court will dismiss it.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
United States v. Taskov, Case No.
2:10-cr-00217-RFB-PAL, petitioner was convicted of two counts
of receipt of converted and fraudulently taken property and
aiding and abetting, one count of interstate transportation
of converted and fraudulently taken property and aiding and
abetting, and one count of mail fraud and aiding and
abetting. Petitioner currently is pursuing a motion attacking
his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in that action.
upon documents attached to the petition, petitioner is a
Canadian citizen of Bulgarian birth. The Department of
Homeland Security has at least started, if not concluded,
deportation proceedings at the Immigration Court in Dallas,
Texas, because petitioner has been convicted of aggravated
felonies under 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) and because
he overstayed his permission to be in the United States under
8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B). ECF No. 1-2, at 52-55, 70-72.
current petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 appears to
contain challenges to both the deportation proceedings and to
the criminal case. Grounds 1 and 2 clearly are challenges to
the deportation proceedings, based upon petitioner's
claim that he is a lawful permanent resident of the United
States. Ground 3 is a claim that petitioner was subject to
unreasonable search and seizure. Ground 4 is a claim of
ineffective assistance of counsel. Grounds 3 and 4 also
appear to be related to petitioner's deportation
proceedings, because he argues that some of the documents
seized, and to which he has no access, are relevant to his
claim that he is a lawful permanent resident.
extent that petitioner is raising challenges to his criminal
case, he cannot raise them in a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A motion attacking
his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is the correct
way to present those challenges, and petitioner currently is
pursuing such a motion. See 28 U.S.C. §
extent that petitioner is raising challenges to his
deportation proceedings, at the very least he has commenced
this action in the wrong court. A habeas corpus petition must
name as a respondent the person who has direct custody over
petitioner, either the warden of the prison or other
equivalent person, and it needs to be filed in the district
where that custodian is located. When petitioner commenced
this action, he was in custody in Cleburne, Texas, and he now
is in custody in Okmulgee, Oklahoma. At no point during the
pendency of this action was petitioner in custody within the
District of Nevada. This court does not have jurisdiction
over petitioner's custodian. The correct venue now for a
habeas corpus petition, if at all, would be in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma.
no district court has jurisdiction to consider a habeas
corpus petition. Petitioner invokes 8 U.S.C. §
1252(e)(2)(C). ECF No. 1-1, at 7. That statute provides:
(e) Judicial review of orders under [8 U.S.C. §]
1225(b)(1) . . .
(2) Habeas corpus proceedings Judicial review of any
determination made under section 1225(b)(1) of this title is
available in habeas corpus proceedings, but shall be limited
to determinations of--
(A) whether the petitioner is an alien,
(B) whether the petitioner was ordered removed under such
(C) whether the petitioner can prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that the petitioner is an alien lawfully
admitted for permanent residence, has been admitted as a
refugee under section 1157 of this title, or has been granted
asylum under section 1158 of this title, such status not
having been terminated, and is entitled to such further
inquiry as prescribed by the Attorney General pursuant to
section 1225(b)(1)(C) of this title.
1225(b)(1) concerns the inspection of an alien who is
arriving in the United States and the expedited removal of
that alien if the immigration officer determines that the
alien is inadmissible for misrepresenting material facts or
for lacking the correct documents. Based upon the documents
attached to the petition, § 1225(b)(1) and the
judicial-review provision of § 1252(e)(2)(C) is
inapplicable to petitioner. Petitioner is subject to
deportation because he has been convicted of aggravated
felonies under 8 U.S.C. § 1227. ECF No. 1-2, at 54, 70.
Judicial review of that determination is available, if at
all, through a petition for review filed with the court of
appeals, and not through a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(1), ...