Milan-Rodriguez v. Lynch
ORDER for Supplemental Briefing signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 08/04/2017. (Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JORGE ANTONIO MILAN-RODRIGUEZ,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01578-SAB-HC
ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING
LORETTA E. LYNCH,
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.
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 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
The Court finds that supplemental briefing and further development of the record on
8 Petitioner’s claims arising from his transfer to Louisiana would assist the Court. Accordingly, the
9 Court HEREBY ORDERS:
1. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, Respondent shall file a
supplemental brief regarding Petitioner’s claims for relief arising out of his transfer to
Louisiana and any evidence necessary for the resolution of the issues; and
2. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of Respondent’s brief, Petitioner may
file a response to Respondent’s brief.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
August 4, 2017
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?