Hernandez v. Longshore, et al

Filing 10

ORDER granting 7 Motion to Amend and 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and denying as moot 9 Motion to Expedite, by Judge Christine M. Arguello on 11/21/13.(dkals, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Christine M. Arguello
Civil Action No. 13-cv-02675-CMA-BNB
JUAN CASTILLO HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
JOHN LONGSHORE, Field Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
JANET NAPOLITANO, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security,
JOHN MORTON, Director for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and
ERIC HOLDER, Attorney General, United States of America,
JOHNNY CHOATE, Warden, Denver Contract Detention Facility
Respondents.

ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND
MOTION TO AMEND AND DENYING MOTION TO EXPEDITE

This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Juan Castillo Hernandez’s Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1), First Motion to Amend/Correct/Modify (Doc.
# 7), and Motion to Expedite. (Doc.. # 9).
This case concerns Mr. Castillo’s access to a bond hearing, which in the
immigration context is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Mr. Castillo is currently
detained in an immigration detention facility in Aurora, Colorado, and was denied
access to a § 1226(a) bond hearing. The government argues that Mr. Castillo is not
entitled to such a hearing because he is subject to the mandatory detention provision

outlined in 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). (Doc. # 8) Mr. Castillo argues in part that he is not
subject to this mandatory detention provision and is therefore entitled to a bond hearing.
An Immigration Judge (IJ) has found Mr. Castillo removable and Mr. Castillo has
appealed that determination to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). (Doc. # 1, at 6.)
Mr. Castillo informs this Court that his appeal is still pending before the BIA.
This Court agrees with Mr. Castillo that he is entitled to a bond hearing in accord
with 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The Court was in the process of preparing a longer Order
on the matter, which will include much of the reasoning from Baquera v. Longshore,
No. 13-CV-00543-RM-MEH, 2013 WL 2423178 (D. Colo. June 4, 2013), and Castaneda
v. Souza, No. 13-10874-WGY, 2013 WL 3353747 (D. Mass. July 3, 2013). The Order
will also address the additional arguments raised by the government in its Answer (Doc.
# 8). Finally, the Order will address this Court’s reasoning on the proper respondent
for this habeas petition, a matter raised by the government in its Answer and an issue
resolved in part by this Court’s decision to grant Mr. Castillo’s Motion to Amend (Doc.
# 7).
Yesterday, Mr. Castillo brought to this Court’s attention a motion the government
filed with the BIA in which the government argues that because Mr. Castillo is
contesting the basis for his detention through a Writ of Habeas Corpus, he should
be deported as expeditiously as possible. (Doc. # 9)
This Court is concerned by the reasoning that undergirds the government’s
Motion to Expedite (Doc. # 9-1). A number of federal courts have already addressed
the government’s interpretation of § 1226(c) and its application to immigration detainees

2

similarly situated to Mr. Castillo. A majority of these courts, including three other district
courts in the Tenth Circuit, have found the government’s interpretation of § 1226(c) to
be improper and have granted the immigration detainees’ habeas petitions. See, e.g.,
Baquera, supra; Valdez v. Terry, 874 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (D.N.M. 2012); Ortiz v. Holder,
No. 11-CV1146-DAK, 2012 WL 893154 (D. Utah Mar. 14, 2012).
Rather than continuing to litigate this matter in Article III courts, the government
now seeks to stifle access to the Great Writ by asking an Article I court to place
immigration detainees who contest the basis of their detention on a fast track to
deportation. But cf. Memorandum from John Morton, Dir., Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Dep’t of Homeland Sec., to All Field Officers, All Special Agents in
Charge, All Chief Counsel, Prosecutorial Discretion: Certain Victims, Witnesses, and
Plaintiffs, at *2 (June 17, 2011) (directing ICE attorneys to exercise discretion “when
making detention and enforcement decisions in cases of . . . individuals pursuing
legitimate civil rights complaints” and noting that “[p]articular attention should be paid to
“plaintiffs in non-frivolous lawsuits regarding civil rights or liberties violations”), available
at https://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/domestic-violence.pdf.
To avoid such an unjust outcome and needless delay to Mr. Castillo while this
Court’s more detailed Order is prepared, Mr. Castillo’s motion for a writ of habeas
corpus is granted. See Gordon v. Napolitano, 13-CV-30146-MAP, 2013 WL 5774843,
at *2 (D. Mass. Oct. 23, 2013) (adopting a similar approach).
***

3

In sum, this Court GRANTS Mr. Castillo’s Motion to Amend (Doc. # 7) and
GRANTS his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1). The Motion to Expedite
(Doc. # 9) is DENIED AS MOOT. The Respondents shall provide Mr. Castillo with an
individualized bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C § 1226(a) within 14 days of the date
of the entry of this Order.
DATED: November 21, 2013
BY THE COURT:

_______________________________
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO
United States District Judge

4