San v. Sessions et al
MEMORANDUM ORDER directing clerk to prepare summons and serve by certified mail a copy of the petition and this order upon the specified parties. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carol B Whitehurst on 7/6/2017. (crt,ThomasSld, T)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
SOPHORN SAN (A046-148-918),
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:17-CV-684; SECTION
JUDGE REBECCA F. DOHERTY
JEFF SESSIONS, ET AL.,
MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST
Before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (28 U.S.C. § 2241) filed by pro se
Petitioner Sophorn San. Petitioner is an immigration detainee in the custody of the Department of
Homeland Security / U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“DHS/ICE”). He is detained at
the Pine Prairie Correctional Center in Pine Prairie, Louisiana. Petitioner alleges that his continued
detention is unconstitutional under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001).
This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in
accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and the standing orders of the Court.
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Cambodia. He alleges that he was first taken into INS
custody on May 4, 2016, and has remained in custody continuously since that date. [Rec. Doc. 4,
Petitioner was ordered removed on August 20, 2016. Id. Petitioner alleges that he has
remained in ICE custody beyond the presumptively reasonable 6-month post-removal order period
set forth in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001).
In order to determine what action should be taken with respect to this petition,
THE CLERK IS DIRECTED to serve a summons, a copy of the petition, and a copy of this
Order, by certified mail, on the United States through the United States Attorney for the Western
District of Louisiana, the United States Attorney General, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (DHS/ICE), the Director of ICE, and the warden of the Pine Prairie Correctional
IT IS ORDERED that Respondents file an answer to the petition within sixty (60) days
following the date of service. In the answer, Respondents shall provide the Court with summary
judgment evidence indicating whether there is a significant likelihood of removal in the
reasonably foreseeable future or whether Petitioner’s detention is otherwise lawful. This
evidence shall include information regarding the length of time that he has been in post-removalorder custody, the date on which his removal order became final, any administrative decisions
relating to Petitioner’s request for bond, and all documents relevant to the efforts made by the
immigration officials to obtain travel documents for Petitioner.
Respondents shall also file a memorandum of law briefing the issues raised in the answer and
citing applicable statutory and case law. The memorandum should also address whether there is a
significant likelihood of removing Petitioner from the United States in the reasonably foreseeable
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner will be given thirty (30) days following the
filing of Respondents’ answer to produce contradictory summary judgment evidence1 on the issue
of the lawfulness of his detention.
Summary judgment evidence consists of affidavits or unsworn declarations made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746,
deposition testimony, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and sworn or certified copies of all papers referred to. All
affidavits or unsworn declarations must comply with Rule 56(e). They shall be made on personal knowledge and set forth
such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the
matters stated therein.
All documentary exhibits MUST BE APPROPRIATELY BOUND AND THE PAGES
MUST BE NUMBERED. An index describing each item attached to the response and showing each
item’s page number shall also be attached.
FINALLY, IT IS ORDERED that, as a condition to their acceptance by the Clerk, all future
filings by Petitioner and Respondents shall include a certificate stating that a copy thereof has been
mailed to all other parties.
After the record is complete and all delays have run, the Court will determine if
genuine issues of material fact exist, which preclude summary judgment and necessitate an
evidentiary hearing. If no hearing is necessary, a Report and Recommendation will be issued
without further notice.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers in Lafayette, Louisiana, this 6th day of July,
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?