Kroeung v. Johnson et al
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 06/19/15 ordering the parties to file, no later than 7/02/15, one of the following: 1. A motion to dismiss the petition to be filed by respondents, together with a jointly agreed-upon expedited briefing schedule for petitioner's opposition; or 2. A joint stipulation regarding the proposed handling of this matter. (Plummer, M)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
No. 2:15-cv-0785 KJN P
JEH CHARLES JOHNSON, et al.,
Petitioner, a Cambodian national released on parole by the State of California to the
custody of United States Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), has filed an
application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges his
continued detention by ICE. The court previously set a status conference in this matter, and
directed counsel for petitioner and respondents to file status reports in advance of the conference.
(See ECF No. 8.)
The status conference came on for hearing before the undersigned on June 18, 2015, at
10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 25. Assistant Federal Defender Carolyn M. Wiggin appeared on behalf
of petitioner and Assistant U.S. Attorney Audrey B. Hemesath appeared on behalf of respondents.
Respondents’ counsel made the following representations to the court:
Approximately two weeks ago, the Cambodian government conducted batch
interviews of 43 Cambodian nationals detained in York, Pennsylvania.
As of Monday, June 15, 2015, the Cambodian government had informally indicated its
willingness to issue travel documents to 40 of the 43 detainees who were interviewed.
A formal response from the Cambodian government is expected in the next one to two
It is expected that petitioner would be transported to Cambodia one to two months
after the date on which Cambodian government issues him a travel document
(assuming he is one of the approved 40). Petitioner would have priority for
transportation due to his filing of the instant habeas petition.
If the Cambodian government does not issue petitioner a travel document, respondents
would likely not oppose his release from detention.
Petitioner’s counsel indicated to the court that she had no additional information beyond
that provided by respondents’ counsel. Petitioner’s counsel also requested that petitioner be
immediately released from his current detention to a location previously approved by the
California parole authorities, that petitioner be required to check in with ICE authorities daily,
and suggested that, if necessary, petitioner’s release be subject to additional conditions such as
the wearing of an ankle monitor.
The court, having carefully considered the applicable law, as well as the parties’
representations and arguments, HEREBY ORDERS the parties to file, no later than July 2, 2015,
one of the following:
1. A motion to dismiss the petition to be filed by respondents, together with a jointly
agreed-upon expedited briefing schedule for petitioner’s opposition; or
2. A joint stipulation regarding the proposed handling of this matter.
Dated: June 19, 2015
It is unclear to the court whether a travel document for petitioner would issue on this date or on some
unspecified future date. Any briefing pursuant to the order herein should address this point.
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?