Medina-Lara v. Holder

Filing 4

ORDER to SHOW CAUSE Why The Petition Should Not Be Granted; ORDER DIRECTING The Clerk to Serve Documents on Respondent, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 12/14/10.(Hellings, J)

(HC) Medina-Lara v. Holder

Doc. 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 JOSE LUIS MEDINA-LARA, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Petitioner is detained by the United States Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., et. al., ) ) Respondents. ) ____________________________________) 1:10-cv-02255-JLT HC ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO SERVE DOCUMENTS ON RESPONDENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

19 ("ICE") and is proceeding with a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 20 In the petition, Petitioner alleges that he is a native of Mexico and that he has been in

21 continuous custody of ICE since September 14, 2009. (Doc. 1, p. 4).1 Petitioner alleges that his 22 detention is unlawful and violates his due process rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth 23 Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Doc. 1, p. 4). Petitioner also asserts that he is 24 entitled to a bond hearing before a neutral magistrate. (Id., p. 5). 25 26 27 28
U . S . D is t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia

It appears from the petition that removal proceedings are still pending. Therefore, Petitioner may presently be s u b j e c t to 8 U.S.C. §1226(c)(1), which applies to the detention of criminal aliens, and therefore Petitioner's release may be p r o h ib ite d by statute unless Respondent concludes that Petitioner satisfies one of several narrow exceptions contained in 8 U .S .C . § 1226(c)(2). However, the record is presently insufficient for the Court to make findings in this regard. Therefore, th e Court has no alternative but to require Respondent to file a response to this Order to Show Cause.

1

1
Dockets.Justia.com

1

Because Petitioner may be entitled to relief if the claimed violations are proved, Respondent

2 IS ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted. Rule 4, Rules Governing 3 Section 2254 Cases; see Rule 1(b), Rule 11, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 81(a)(2). Respondent SHALL INCLUDE a copy of Petitioner's Alien File and any and all other 5 documentation relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the petition. Rule 5 of the Rules 6 Governing Section 2254 Cases. In the event the Petitioner is released from ICE custody during the 7 pendency of this Petition, the parties SHALL notify the Court by filing a Motion to Dismiss the 8 Petition or other proper pleading. Should the parties fail to notify the Court that Petitioner has been 9 released, the parties may be subject to sanctions pursuant to the inherent power of the Court to issue 10 sanctions in appropriate cases. See Local Rule 110. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Respondent is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be granted. The Return to the Order to Show Cause is due within FORTY-FIVE (45) days of the date of service of this order. Petitioner may file a Traverse to the Return within TEN (10) days of the date the Return to the Order to Show Cause is filed with the Court. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to SERVE a copy of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on the United States Attorney. The Court has determined that this matter is suitable for decision without oral argument

19 pursuant to Local Rule 230(h). As such, the matter will be taken under submission following the 20 filing of Petitioner's Traverse or the expiration of the time for filing the Traverse. All other briefing 21 in this action is suspended. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: December 14, 2010 9j7khi 25 26 27 28
U . S . D is t r ic t C o u r t E. D . C a lifo r n ia

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2