Sandhu v. Bransom, 4:96-CV-447-A

• Decision Date: 01 July 1996
• Docket Number: No. 4:96-CV-447-A,4:96-CV-448-A and 4:96-CR-028-A.,4:96-CV-447-A
• Citation: 932 F. Supp. 822
• Parties: Daya Singh SANDHU, a/k/a Daya Singh Lahoria, et al., Petitioners, v. Dub BRANSOM, United States Marshal, Respondent.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

932 F. Supp. 822

Daya Singh SANDHU, a/k/a Daya Singh Lahoria, et al., Petitioners, v. Dub BRANSOM, United States Marshal, Respondent.

Nos. 4:96-CV-447-A, 4:96-CV-448-A and 4:96-CR-028-A.

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division.

July 1, 1996.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Michael Logan Ware, Law Office of Michael Logan Ware, Fort Worth, TX, for defendants.

John Bradford and J. Michael Worley, U.S. Attorney's Office, Fort Worth, TX, for plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

McBRYDE, District Judge.

Came on for consideration the petitions of petitioners, Daya Singh Sandhu a/k/a Daya Singh Lahoria and Kamaljeet Kaur Sandhu a/k/a Suman Sood (hereinafter "petitioners"), for writ of habeas corpus, and the motions of petitioners to stay their extradition to India pending the court's decision on their petitions for writ of habeas corpus. The respondent is the United States Marshal for the Northern District of Texas, who now has custody of petitioners.

I. Procedural History

On March 5, 1996, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Texas, acting on behalf of the Republic of India, filed a verified complaint pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3184 seeking the extradition of petitioners to India. The complaint, which was docketed as No. 4:96-CR-028-A and styled "In the Matter of the Extradition of Daya Singh Lahoria and Suman Sood" on the docket of this court, stated that petitioners are charged in India with the commission in India of specified offenses covered by the extradition treaty in force between the United States and the Republic of India.

The extradition proceeding was called for hearing on June 4, 1996¹, following which the extradition judge² took the matter under advisement. On June 11, 1996, the extradition judge issued a memorandum opinion and order certifying that he deemed the evidence sufficient to sustain certain of the charges against petitioners under the provisions of the proper treaty.³

Each petitioner subsequently filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, asserting identical grounds for relief, in the Dallas Division of this court. Shortly thereafter, the petitions were transferred to the Fort Worth Division and were assigned to the docket of the undersigned judge.⁴ The petitions have now been consolidated under No. 4:96-CV-447-A.

II. Habeas Principles

The court need not order respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted if it appears from the application that petitioners are not entitled to such an order. 28 U.S.C. § 2243. That is, "when it appears from the face of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to the writ of habeas corpus, the court should deny it without going through the idle ceremony of issuing an order to show cause calling upon the respondent to make return." York v. Ward, 538 F.Supp. 315, 318 (E.D.N.Y.1982). In evaluating whether it appears from the petition that the person detained is not entitled to the requested writ of habeas corpus, the court is not strictly bound by the bare allegations. See, e.g., Bundy v. Wainwright, 808 F.2d 1410, 1417 (11th Cir.1987). In the instant action, the court obviously can, and must, take into account the record judicially known to the court of the underlying extradition proceeding. Inasmuch as it appears from the face of the petitions, when the record of the extradition proceeding is considered, that petitioners are not entitled to the writ of habeas corpus, the court finds there is no need to order respondent to show cause.

Generally speaking, on a petition for habeas relief related to a certification under 18 U.S.C. § 3184 of extraditability, the court may inquire only

whether the magistrate had jurisdiction, whether the offence charged is within the treaty and, by a somewhat liberal extension, whether there was any evidence warranting the finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty.

Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311, 312, 45 S.Ct. 541, 542, 69 L.Ed. 970 (1925); accord In re Extradition of Manzi, 888 F.2d 204, 205 (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, 494 U.S. 1017, 110 S.Ct. 1321, 108 L.Ed.2d 496 (1990); Quinn v. Robinson, 783 F.2d 776, 790 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 882, 107 S.Ct. 271, 93 L.Ed.2d 247 (1986); Escobedo v. United States, 623 F.2d 1098, 1101 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1036, 101 S.Ct. 612, 66 L.Ed.2d 497 (1980). Purely legal questions are reviewed de novo by the habeas court, while purely factual questions are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Quinn, 783 F.2d at 790-91.

III. Petition

Petitioners base their petitions on the following grounds: (1) the extradition judge did not have jurisdiction to consider whether petitioners were extraditable; (2) the Indian government's extradition request of petitioners was untimely under the applicable treaty; (3) the statute governing these proceedings is unconstitutional because it violates separation of powers; (4) extradition of petitioners violates the doctrine of specialty; (5) the offenses that are the subject of the extradition request qualify as political offenses and are not extraditable; (6) the Indian government did not proffer evidence establishing probable cause of petitioners' guilt for any extraditable offense; (7) petitioners were denied due process because they were not afforded an opportunity to present evidence in defense of the extradition request; and (8) the extradition judge erred by denying petitioners an opportunity to submit evidence that they will be tortured and extrajudicially executed if they are returned to India.

IV. Analysis

A. Ground One: Jurisdiction

Petitioners argue that, because they were found in Minneapolis, Minnesota, the extradition judge, as a judge of the United States District Court of the Northern District of Texas, did not have jurisdiction to consider whether they were extraditable. A claim of this nature is subject to habeas review. See, e.g., Shapiro v. Ferrandina, 478 F.2d 894, 899-900 (2nd Cir.), cert. dismissed, 414 U.S. 884, 94 S.Ct. 204, 38 L.Ed.2d 133 (1973); Ahmad v. Wigen, 726 F.Supp. 389, 397-99 (E.D.N.Y.1989), aff'd, 910 F.2d 1063 (2nd Cir.1990). After having reviewed this issue of law de novo, the court concludes, for the same reasons expressed by the extradition judge, Extradition Opinion at 35, that the extradition judge was not without jurisdiction to consider whether petitioners were extraditable.

B. Ground Two: Timeliness

Petitioners assert that the Indian government's request for their extradition was untimely because it was not submitted within two months of their apprehension, as required by the Treaty. A claim of this sort is cognizable on habeas review. See, e.g., Peryea v. United States, 782 F.Supp. 937, 940-41 (D.Vt.1991), aff'd, 970 F.2d 896 (2nd Cir.1992). Having reviewed this issue of law de novo, the court concludes, for the same reasons expressed by the extradition judge, Extradition Opinion at 35-36, that the extradition request was not untimely.

C. Ground Three: Constitutionality

Petitioners contend that the statute governing the extradition proceedings is unconstitutional because it violates the principle of separation of powers.

A claim that the extradition statute is unconstitutional is cognizable on habeas review. E.g., Matter of Extradition of Lang, 905 F.Supp. 1385 (C.D.Cal.1995); Manrique Carreno v. Johnson, 899 F.Supp. 624 (S.D.Fla.1995); Lobue v. Christopher, 893 F.Supp. 65 (D.D.C.1995), vacated on other grounds, 82 F.3d 1081 (1996). The court has studied this issue of law, and the cases discussing it, at length, and concludes that the statute in question does not violate the principle of separation of powers and is not unconstitutional. See In re Extradition of Lin, 915 F.Supp. 206, 211-15 (D.C.Guam 1995); Lang, 905 F.Supp. at 1385; Matter of Extradition of Sutton, 905 F.Supp. 631 (E.D.Mo. 1995); Matter of Extradition of Sidali, 899 F.Supp. 1342, 1350 (D.N.J.1995); Manrique Carreno, 899 F.Supp. at 624; Lobue, 893 F.Supp. at 65.

D. Ground Four: Doctrine of Specialty

Petitioners assert that their extraditions would violate the doctrine of specialty. A claim of this sort is cognizable on habeas review. See Shapiro, 478 F.2d at 907. Having reviewed this issue of law de novo, the court concludes, for the same reasons expressed by the extradition judge, Extradition Opinion at 37-38, that petitioners' extraditions would not violate the doctrine of specialty.

E. Ground Five: Political Offense Exception

Petitioners argue that the offenses that are the subject of the extradition request qualify as political offenses and, therefore, are not extraditable.

The political offense question is reviewable on habeas corpus as part of the question of whether the offense charged is within the treaty. Quinn, 783 F.2d at 790-91; see, e.g., Escobedo, 623 F.2d at 1104. This issue is a mixed question of law and fact. Quinn, 783 F.2d at 791. Accordingly,

the district court must review the magistrate's purely factual findings underlying the application of the political offense exception under the clearly erroneous standard, while the mixed determinations at issue — such as the question whether the crime was incidental to a political uprising — must be reviewed de novo.

Id.

Contrary to petitioners' assertions, petitioners were given a full opportunity to establish by proof at the extradition hearing their assertion that the offenses for which their extraditions are sought were committed in the course of and incidental to a violent political disturbance. As explained by the extradition judge, petitioners failed to carry their burden of proof. Extradition Opinion at 32-35. Petitioners are not entitled at this time to an entirely de novo trial on the issue of whether the political offense exception applies. Rather, the function of the court now is to determine whether the extradition judge's finding that petitioners failed to meet their burden of proof at the extradition hearing was clearly erroneous....