Ruiz Chavez v. Sessions et al

Filing 13

AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 4/2/2018. Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 3/26/2018. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2018)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

GUIBRAN ARIEL RUIZ CHAVEZ,

Case No. 18-cv-00439-MEJ

Plaintiff,
7

AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.
8
9

JEFFERSON SESSIONS, et al.,
Defendants.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Petitioner initially filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

13

See Pet., Dkt. No. 1. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Respondents U.S.

14

Attorney General Jefferson Sessions; Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security

15

Kirstjen Nielson; Field Office Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for San

16

Francisco David Jennings; and Sheriff-Coroner of Contra Costa County David O. Livingston to

17

show cause by April 2, 2018 why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue. OSC, Dkt. No. 6.

18

Three weeks later, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition. Am. Pet., Dkt. No. 9. Petitioner stated

19

he had been released from detention but was subject to certain conditions of release that might last

20

indefinitely. Id. ¶¶ 8-9, 12-14; see generally Brown v. Baughman, 2017 WL 3142115, at *1 (N.D.

21

Cal. July 25, 2017) (for purposes of habeas relief, “custody” may exist when the petitioner is on

22

parole or probation, or where the sentence imposes significant restraints on liberty (citing cases)).

23

In his Amended Petition, Petitioner challenges his conditions of release as a violation of

24

his Fifth Amendment right to due process, and asks the Court either order him released from

25

certain conditions of supervision, or order Respondents to show cause why he should not be

26

released. Id. Respondent Livingston filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to the initial and

27

amended petitions on the ground Petitioner was released from custody and Respondent takes no

28

position regarding the merits of Petitioner’s claim for habeas release. Statement, Dkt. No. 10. He

1

states he will not appear at any future hearings unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Id.1

2

Respondents Sessions, Nielsen, and Jennings have not yet responded to the initial OSC or

3

appeared in these proceedings, and it is not apparent from the docket whether Petitioner served

4

them with a copy of the Amended Petition (see Am. Pet. at ECF p.19 (Cert. of Service only

5

through ECF system)).
Having considered the pleadings and documents in this matter, and good cause having

6
7

been shown by Petitioner, the Court ORDERS Respondents Sessions, Nielsen, and Jennings to

8

Show Cause:
1.

9

By April 2, 2018, Respondents shall respond by answering the allegations in the

Amended Petition and showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue, or by

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

filing a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds;

12

2.

13

May 2, 2018; and
3.

14
15
16
17
18

Petitioner’s traverse, opposition, or statement of non-opposition shall be filed by

Any reply by Respondents shall be due May 17, 2018.

The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order, the Amended Petition, and all attachments
thereto, on Respondents and shall serve copies of these documents to the U.S. Attorney for the
Northern District of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of the “consent or declination to
magistrate judge jurisdiction” upon Respondents and their attorneys.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated: March 26, 2018
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Amended Petition does not allege how Livingston remains a proper respondent in this matter
(e.g., by alleging any facts showing that Livingston is responsible for the release conditions
Petitioner challenges in the Amended Petition).
2