Singh v. Kane et al
Filing
5
*ORDER: The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Summons, the 1 Petition, and this Order upon the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona and United States Attorney General and to Respondents by certified mail. Respondents must an swer the Petition within 20 days of the date of service. Petitioner may file a reply within 30 days from the date of service of the answer. This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade pursuant to Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a report and recommendation. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 7/11/2014. (See Order for details)(ALS) *Modified to add omitted text on 7/11/2014 (ALS).
1
WO
KAB
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
8
9
Arjan Singh,
10
No. CV 14-01354-PHX-SPL (BSB)
Petitioner,
11
vs.
12
Katrina S. Kane, et al.,
ORDER
13
Respondents.
14
15
Petitioner Arjan Singh (A 206-088-063), who is represented by counsel, filed a
16
Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Federal
17
Custody (Doc. 1) and paid the $5.00 filing fee. The Court will require an answer to the
18
Petition.
19
Petitioner is a native and citizen of India. On October 26, 2013, Petitioner entered
20
the United States. At the time of his entry, Petitioner asked a Department of Homeland
21
Security officer to set up an asylum interview. On October 26, 2013, Petitioner was
22
given a reasonable fear interview and on November 5, 2013, it was determined that
23
Petitioner does not have a reasonable fear of persecution in India. On November 7, 2013,
24
Petitioner requested review of the November 5 decision by an Immigration Judge (“IJ”).
25
On November 13, 2013, the IJ affirmed the finding that Petitioner did not establish a
26
reasonable fear of persecution.
27
redetermination hearing pursuant to Rodriguez v. Robbins, 715 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2013).
28
The request for a bond redetermination hearing was denied on June 2, 2014 without
TERMPSREF
On May 22, 2014, Petitioner requested a bond
1
explanation.
2
Relying on Rodriguez, Petitioner argues that his detention for more than six
3
months without a bond hearing before an IJ is unlawful. In Rodriguez, the Ninth Circuit
4
concluded that after six months of mandatory detention under either § 1226(c) or
5
§ 1225(b), the statutory authority to detain an alien shifts to discretionary detention under
6
§ 1226(a) and the alien is entitled to a bond hearing before an IJ. Rodriguez, 715 F.3d at
7
1138-39, 1144. Petitioner also argues that his detention without a hearing violates the
8
Due Process Clause. The Court will require Respondents to answer the Petition.
9
IT IS ORDERED:
10
(1)
The Clerk of Court must serve a copy of the Summons, the Petition
11
(Doc. 1), and this Order upon the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona by
12
certified mail addressed to the civil process clerk at the office of the United States
13
Attorney pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Clerk
14
of Court must also send by certified mail a copy of the Summons, the Petition, and this
15
Order to the United States Attorney General pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(B) and to
16
Respondent pursuant to Rule 4(i)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
17
(2)
Respondents must answer the Petition within 20 days of the date of service.
18
Respondents shall not file a dispositive motion in place of an answer without first
19
showing cause as to why an answer is inadequate.
20
(3)
21
answer.
22
....
23
....
24
....
25
....
26
....
27
....
28
Petitioner may file a reply within 30 days from the date of service of the
....
TERMPSREF
-2-
1
(4)
This matter is referred to Magistrate Judge Bridget S. Bade pursuant to
2
Rules 72.1 and 72.2 of the Local Rules of Civil Procedure for further proceedings and a
3
report and recommendation.
4
Dated this 11th day of July, 2014.
5
6
Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TERMPSREF
-3-
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?