(HC) Martinez Santoyo v. Boyden

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE TRINIDAD MARTINEZ No. 2:25-cv-2656 TLN CKD P SANTOYO, 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER AND v. 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS LASHA BOYDEN, et al. 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 19 challenging the Secretary of State’s decision that petitioner be surrendered to Mexico to face 20 charges of aggravated homicide, unfair advantage, based upon his belief that if surrendered he 21 will be tortured and killed. For the reasons which follow, the court recommends that the petition 22 be denied. 23 I. Procedural History 24 On February 24, 2023, in 2:21-mj-0125 CKD 1, Magistrate Judge Kendall Newman1 25 granted a motion brought by the United States seeking certification of the extradition of petitioner 26 to Mexico. Underlying the granting of that motion was Magistrate Judge Newman’s finding that 27 1 The undersigned was assigned to 2:21-mj-0125 CKD 1 after the retirement of Magistrate Judge 28 Newman. 1 there is probable cause to support the Mexican charge of intentional aggravated homicide, unfair 2 advantage. The certification was forwarded to the Secretary of State as is required under 18 3 U.S.C. § 3184. 4 “The decision to certify a person as extraditable is not subject to direct appeal but may be 5 challenged collaterally through habeas corpus review.” Prasoprat v. Benov, 421 F.3d 1009, 1013 6 (9th Cir. 2005). Petitioner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging Magistrate 7 Judge Newman’s decision on March 10, 2023, in 2:23-cv-0447 DJC JDP. That petition was 8 denied on March 27, 2024, and petitioner appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial on 9 March 11, 2025, in case no. 24-1967. Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the 10 United States Supreme Court, which was denied on October 6, 2025, in case no. 24-7375. 11 After a finding of probable cause, it is up to the Secretary of State to determine whether a 12 person will be surrendered to Mexico. 18 U.S.C. § 3186. On June 13, 2025, petitioner submitted 13 a letter to the Secretary of State, including legal arguments and exhibits, in which he claims that 14 his extradition is barred by federal statutes and regulations because of the likelihood that he will 15 be tortured. ECF No. 1-2. In a letter dated September 12, 2025, petitioner was informed by Tom 16 Heinemann, Attorney Adviser, Law Enforcement and Intelligence, U.S. Department of State, that 17 “following a review [of] all pertinent information,” “the Deputy Secretary of State decided to 18 authorize” extradition. ECF No. 1-1. Petitioner challenges that decision. 19 II. Analysis 20 Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and pursuant to the United States’ ratification of the United 21 Nations Convention Against Torture in 1994, it is “the policy of the United States not to . . . 22 extradite . . . any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the 23 person would be in danger of being subjected to torture.” 8 U.S.C. § 1231 note (a). Also, under 24 that statute, the Department of State must implement regulations putting the policy into effect. Id. 25 note b. The Department of State has done so. 22 C.F.R. §§ 95.1–95.4. Pursuant to the 26 regulations, when an allegation of torture is made the “appropriate policy and legal offices review 27 and analyze information relevant to the case in preparing a recommendation to the Secretary as to 28 whether or not to sign the surrender warrant.” Id. at § 95.3(a). Then the Secretary of State must 1 determine whether it is more likely than not that the person attempting to stop extradition will be 2 tortured. Trinidad y Garcia v. Thomas, 683 F.3d 952, 956–57 (9th Cir. 2012). 3 In Trinidad y Garcia, the Ninth Circuit held that to survive a challenge to the Secretary’s 4 decision concerning the likelihood of torture, the record before the court must include evidence 5 that the Secretary of State performed its duties under the regulations identified above. Id. at 957. 6 If the record so reflects, the person seeking to halt extradition’s “liberty interest [arising under the 7 Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment] shall be fully vindicated.” Id. Separation of 8 powers and the “rule of non-inquiry”2 block any further substantive judicial review. Id. 9 With their motion to dismiss, respondents provide a declaration from Mr. Heinemann in which he 10 indicates “Deputy Secretary of State [Christopher] Landau authorized [petitioner’s] extradition” 11 following “a review of all pertinent information” and “[a]s the official responsible for managing 12 the Department's responsibilities in this case, I [Mr. Heinemann] confirm that the decision to 13 surrender [petitioner] to Mexico complies with the United States' obligations under the 14 Convention [Against Torture] and its implementing statute and regulations.” ECF No. 19-1. 15 In Sridej v. Blinken, 108 F.4th 1088, (9th Cir. 2024) the Ninth Circuit recently found that 16 essentially the same evidence was sufficient to establish that the Secretary of State did as required 17 under federal law with respect to an allegation of likely torture. This being the case, the court has 18 no basis to enjoin the Secretary of State’s decision that petitioner be surrendered to Mexico. 19 III. Denial of Motion for Discovery 20 In his petition, petitioner requests permission to engage in discovery. In light of the 21 foregoing and because it does not appear allowing discovery would serve any purpose, that 22 request will be denied. 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 2 The “rule of non-inquiry” is “the long-standing principle that courts should refrain from 26 inquiring into how an individual will be treated by a foreign state if extradited.” Santos v. 27 Thomas, 830 F.3d 987, 1007 n. 9 (9th Cir. 2016). “In other words, the rule bars the judiciary from preventing the surrender of a fugitive on the basis of humanitarian considerations once 28 extradition has been certified, reserving that decision to the Secretary of State.” Id. ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioner’s request to engage in discovery 2 || is denied. 3 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 4 1. Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No.1) be denied; and 5 2. This case be closed 6 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 7 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 8 | after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 9 || objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 10 || “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the 11 || objections shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The 12 || parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 13 || appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 | Dated: October 24, 2025 / aa / a Ly a 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 | , sant2656.2241 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28