Singh v. Attorney of the United States et al
| Jasdev Singh |
| Secretary Department of Homeland Security, Attorney of the United States and ICE Field Office Director |
| 5:2014cv00041 |
| May 22, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
| Western Office |
| Washington |
| Michael T. Parker |
| David C. Bramlette |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
3
Memorandum Opinion and Order re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Because Petitioner's challenge to his plea agreement and conviction do not meet the stringent requirements of the savings clause, this petition 1 must be dismissed wit h prejudice. And to the extent the Court could construe these grounds pursuant to § 2255, because the motion must be filed in the sentencing court, which is the Eastern District of California, such claims will be dismissed without prejudice for the Court's lack of jurisdiction. As for Petitioner's claim challenging the removal order and the denial of his motion for order of supervision, bail/bond pending appeal/review of order of removal by the Immigration Judge, the Court does not have jurisdiction to consider such claims and those claims will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on June 18, 2014. (lda)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Mississippi Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
