Anesh Gupta v. U.S. Attorney General ( 2012 )

Case: 11-15259 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 1 of 5
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 11-15259
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 6:11-cv-01731-MSS-GJK
ANESH GUPTA,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL, ANY OTHER PERSON
HAVING PETITIONER IN CUSTODY,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(July 31, 2012)
Before BARKETT, PRYOR and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 11-15259 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 2 of 5
Anesh Gupta appeals the district court’s dismissal, based on a lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, of his habeas corpus petition filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, and the court’s denial of his motion for a temporary restraining
order and preliminary injunction. Gupta, an alien residing in the United States,
filed an application for adjustment of status in 2002. When he filed for adjustment
of status, he also filed an application for employment authorization, which was
granted in 2002. In 2009, the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services
denied his application for adjustment of status, and Gupta’s employment
authorization was automatically terminated because removal proceedings were
instituted. On appeal, Gupta argues that the district court mischaracterized his
petition as an attack on the discretionary denial of his application for adjustment of
status under the Immigration and Nationality Act, when he actually was
challenging the fact that he never received a hearing before his employment
authorization was terminated.
We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a habeas corpus petition
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Taylor v. United States, 396 F.3d 1322,
1327 (11th Cir. 2005). We can “affirm for any reason supported by the record,
even if not relied on by the district court.” Cochran v. U.S. Health Care Fin.
Admin., 291 F.3d 775, 778 n.3 (11th Cir. 2002).
2
Case: 11-15259 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 3 of 5
We have held that 28 U.S.C. § 2241 “is the statutory grant of authority to
federal courts to issue the writ when certain jurisdictional prerequisites are
satisfied.” Arnaiz v. Warden, Fed. Satellite Low, 594 F.3d 1326, 1328 (11th Cir.
2010). One of these jurisdictional prerequisites is that the petitioner must be in
custody. Patel v. U.S. Att’y Gen., 334 F.3d 1259, 1263 (11th Cir. 2003). When
determining whether habeas corpus is available, the Supreme Court “has generally
looked to common-law usages and the history of habeas corpus both in England
and in this country.” Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236, 238, 83 S. Ct. 373, 375
(1963).
Regardless of precisely how the district court characterized Gupta’s
arguments, Gupta has failed to show that he is in custody. A review of cases from
our Court and the Supreme Court revealed no case that extended the “in custody”
requirement to employment situations. In Arnaiz, we noted that habeas corpus has
historically been used to review executive detention, and that “it is in that context
that its protections have been strongest.” Arnaiz, 594 F.3d at 1328-29. Because
of this historical context, habeas corpus jurisdiction requires some form of
custody. Id. Imprisonment is the usual context of habeas corpus, but the Supreme
Court has noted that there was historical support for habeas corpus relief where a
person’s movements are otherwise sufficiently restrained, such as where (1) a
3
Case: 11-15259 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 4 of 5
woman’s guardians were keeping her away from her husband, (2) an indentured
girl was assigned to another man for “bad purposes,” (3) a parent was attempting
to obtain custody of a child from the other parent, or (4) a person was challenging
conscription into the military. Jones, 371 U.S. at 238-40, 83 S. Ct. at 375-76; see
also Patel, 334 F.3d at 1263 (“There must be a significant restraint on the
petitioner’s liberty to satisfy this ‘custody’ requirement.”)
We have also determined that petitioners challenging fines, restitution, or
revocation of a driver’s license were not in custody for habeas corpus purposes.
See Arnaiz, 594 F.3d at 1330; Duvallon v. Florida, 691 F.2d 483, 485 (11th Cir.
1982); Westberry v. Keith, 434 F.2d 623, 624-25 (5th Cir. 1970).
Here, Gupta has not explained how he is in custody. He is not in any
traditional form of custody such as imprisonment, nor are his movements or
liberties significantly restrained. See Patel, 334 F.3d at 1263. Indeed, his
requested form of relief is a court order permitting him to work in the United
States, rather than an order seeking his release from anyone’s custody. See
Arnaiz, 594 F.3d at 1329 (noting that typical habeas corpus remedy is release from
custody). Because Gupta has not demonstrated how the lack of employment
authorization equates to being “in custody” for § 2241 purposes, the district court
properly concluded that it did not have jurisdiction to consider Gupta’s § 2241
4
Case: 11-15259 Date Filed: 07/31/2012 Page: 5 of 5
petition. See Patel, 334 F.3d at 1263. Because it lacked jurisdiction over this
matter, the district court also correctly concluded that it could not issue a
temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction.
AFFIRMED.
5