Manzanarez v. Holder et al

Filing 11

ORDER REGARDING UPCOMING HEARING re 1 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 10/1/13. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
ERIC HOLDER, United States
Attorney General; MICHAEL
)
SAMANIEGO, District Director, )
Investigations and Customs
)
)
Enforcement; DAVID SHINN,
Warden, Honolulu Federal
)
)
Detention Center,
)
Respondents.
_____________________________ )
JORGE ROCHA MANZANAREZ,

CIVIL NO. 13-00354 SOM BMK
ORDER REGARDING UPCOMING
HEARING

ORDER REGARDING UPCOMING HEARING
The court directs the parties to address the following
questions either by filing a memorandum of no more than 1000
words by Friday, October 4, 2013, or (in light of the government
shutdown) coming to the hearing prepared to discuss these
matters.
1.

Does this court have before it the issue of whether

the Immigration Judge and Board of Immigration Appeals erred in
ruling that Petitioner had the burden of proving that he was not
a danger to the community?

If Petitioner submits that it is,

Petitioner is directed to cite the court to the language in the
petition raising the issue. The Government's opposition
memorandum says that that issue is not raised by Petitioner.
Petitioner's reply memorandum does raise the issue.

Even if

Petitioner has violated the local rule prohibiting the raising of

new issues in a reply memorandum, why couldn't this be remedied
by allowing the Government a fair opportunity to address the
issue?
2.

Assuming the issue is before this court, does the

Government disagree with Petitioner on this point?
3.

Does the pending appeal preclude this court's

addressing of that issue?

Or, are the parties of the view that,

because appeals that are clearly wrongful do not normally divest
a district court of jurisdiction, this court may proceed to
address the issue?
4.

Assuming this court may address the issue, how do

the parties propose the court should proceed?
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, October 1, 2013.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
Chief United States District Judge

Jorge Rocha Manzanarez v. Eric Holder, Civil No. 13-00354 SOM
BMK, Order Regarding Upcoming Hearing

2