Milan-Rodriguez v. Lynch

Filing 29

ORDER for Supplemental Briefing signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 08/04/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JORGE ANTONIO MILAN-RODRIGUEZ,

Case No. 1:16-cv-01578-SAB-HC

Petitioner,

12

ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
13
14
15

v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH,
Respondent.

16
17

Petitioner is a federal immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of

18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his continued detention.
19

From April 15, 2015 to September 22, 2016, Petitioner was detained at the Mesa Verde

20 Detention Facility in Bakersfield, California. Petitioner was then transferred to the Pine Prairie
21 Correctional Center in Pine Prairie, Louisiana, where he remained until March 30, 2017.
22 Thereafter, Petitioner was transferred back to the Mesa Verde Detention Facility, where he is
23 currently detained. (ECF No. 24-1 at 105). In the amended petition, Petitioner’s raises claims
24 regarding his transfer to Louisiana. Petitioner asserts that the transfer violated his substantive due
25 process rights and jeopardized his parental rights, resulting in a loss of filial and parental
26 consortium. Petitioner also asserts that the transfer violated the U.S. Immigration and Customs
27 Enforcement’s directive “Facilitating Parental Interests in the Course of Civil Immigration
28 Enforcement Activities.” (ECF No. 20 at 28). Petitioner is requesting the Court to order a

1

1 transfer to a facility in Orange County, California. (ECF No. 20 at 30). In the motion to dismiss,
2 Respondent argues that the claims arising from the transfer are moot in light of Petitioner’s
3 return to the Mesa Verde, “the very facility that Rodriguez wanted to return to while detained in
4 Louisiana.” (ECF No. 24 at 16). However, as stated above, Petitioner is requesting a transfer to a
5 facility in Orange County, California, and the Mesa Verde facility is not located in Orange
6 County.
The Court finds that supplemental briefing and further development of the record on

7

8 Petitioner’s claims arising from his transfer to Louisiana would assist the Court. Accordingly, the
9 Court HEREBY ORDERS:
10

1. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, Respondent shall file a

11

supplemental brief regarding Petitioner’s claims for relief arising out of his transfer to

12

Louisiana and any evidence necessary for the resolution of the issues; and

13

2. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of Respondent’s brief, Petitioner may
file a response to Respondent’s brief.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 Dated:

August 4, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2