Bhatt v. Kane et al
Filing
4
ORDER that the Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Summons, Petition (Doc. 1), Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Doc. 2), and this Order upon the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona by certified mail addressed to the civil process clerk at the office of the United States Attorney pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court also must send by certified mail a copy of the Summons, Petition, and this Order to the United States Attorney General and to Respondents. Respondents must answer the Petition within 20 days of the date of service. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey for further proceedings and a report and recommendation. Signed by Judge G Murray Snow on 4/5/12. (DMT)
1
WO
JKM
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
Jateen Bhatt,
9
Petitioner,
10
vs.
11
12
13
Katrina Kane, et al.,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. CV 12-0554-PHX-GMS (MEA)
ORDER
14
15
Petitioner Jateen Bhatt (A096-568-616), who is represented by counsel, has filed a
16
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The Court will require
17
Respondents to answer the Petition.
18
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Tanzania who has been a lawful permanent
19
resident of the United States since 2008. On January 6, 2010, the Department of Homeland
20
Security charged him with removability under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(i)(I) and
21
1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an alien convicted of a crime of moral turpitude and an aggravated
22
felony based on his California grand theft conviction. On May 10, 2011, Immigration and
23
Customs Enforcement took him into custody. January 26, 2011, an Immigration Judge (IJ)
24
entered an order for Petitioner’s removal from the United States under 8 U.S.C.
25
§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) as an alien convicted of an aggravated felony. Petitioner’s appeal of the
26
IJ’s decision is still pending before the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).
27
28
TERMPSREF
On November 25, 2011, the IJ denied Petitioner’s request for a redetermination of his
custody status for lack of jurisdiction because Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention
1
under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). Petitioner’s appeal from that order is pending before the BIA.
2
Petitioner claims that his lengthy detention without bond is not authorized by the
3
Immigration and Nationality Act. He also argues that his continued detention violates his
4
substantive and procedural due process rights under the Fifth Amendment. He seeks a
5
declaration that his current detention is unlawful and an order requiring Respondents to
6
provide him with a custody hearing before neutral decision-maker with the authority to grant
7
him release on bond. The Court will require Respondents to answer the Petition.
8
IT IS ORDERED:
9
(1)
The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Summons, Petition (Doc. 1),
10
Memorandum of Points and Authorities (Doc. 2), and this Order upon the United States
11
Attorney for the District of Arizona by certified mail addressed to the civil process clerk at
12
the office of the United States Attorney pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of
13
Civil Procedure. The Clerk of Court also must send by certified mail a copy of the
14
Summons, Petition, and this Order to the United States Attorney General pursuant to Rule
15
4(i)(1)(B) and to Respondents pursuant to Rule 4(i)(2)(A).
16
(2)
Respondents must answer the Petition within 20 days of the date of service.
17
Respondents must not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without first showing
18
cause as to why an answer is inadequate. Petitioner may file a reply within 20 days from the
19
date of service of the answer.
20
(3)
This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Mark E. Aspey pursuant to Rules
21
72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report and
22
recommendation.
23
DATED this 5th day of April, 2012.
24
25
26
27
28
TERMPSREF
-2-
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.
Why Is My Information Online?