Ruiz Chavez v. Sessions et al

Filing 6

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Habeas Answer or Dispositive Motion due by 4/2/2018.Signed by Judge Maria-Elena James on 2/1/2018. (mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/1/2018)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
GUIBRAN ARIEL RUIZ CHAVEZ,

7

Plaintiff.

8

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

v.

9

Re: Dkt. No. 1
JEFFERSON SESSIONS, et al.,

10

Defendants.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No.18-cv-00439-MEJ

12
13

A federal district court is authorized to grant a writ of habeas corpus when a petitioner is

14

“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §

15

2241(c)(3).

16

Petitioner Guibran Ariel Ruiz Chavez, who is in the custody of the Department of

17

Homeland Security, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

18

Petition, Dkt. No. 1. He alleges he has been detained at the West County Detention Facility in

19

Richmond, California for over six months, despite the fact the San Francisco Immigration Court

20

granted his Application for Withholding of Removal to Guatemala, and despite the fact the

21

possibility of removal to another country is an unlikely possibility. Petitioner alleges his

22

continued detention violates 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) and his Fifth Amendment right to due process.

23

See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). He names four persons as Respondents: U.S.

24

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

25

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

26

Francisco David Jennings; and Sheriff-Coroner of Contra Costa County David O. Livingston.1

27
1

28

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the proper respondent for a habeas corpus petition is the person “with
the ability to produce the prisoner’s body before the habeas court.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S.

1
2
3
4

Petition ¶¶ 11-14.
Having considered the pleadings and documents in this matter, and good cause having
been shown by Petitioner, the Court ORDERS Respondents to Show Cause:
1.

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

5

showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue, or by filing a motion to dismiss on

6

procedural grounds;

7

2.

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

8

May 2, 2018; and

9

3.

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

The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order, the petition, and all attachments

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

thereto, on Respondents and shall serve copies of these documents to the U.S. Attorney for the

12

Northern District of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of the “consent or declination to

13

magistrate judge jurisdiction” upon Respondents and their attorneys.

14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16
17
18

Dated: February 1, 2018
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

426, 435 (2004). The “default rule” is that the “warden of the facility where the prisoner is being
held” is the proper respondent where the petitioner is challenging present physical confinement,
“not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official[.]” Id. Petitioner alleges
David O. Livingston, the Sheriff-Coroner of Contra Costa County, is in charge of the West County
Detention Facility where Petitioner is being held. Petition ¶ 14.
2