Maniar v. Pine Prairie Correctional Center

Filing 7

MEMORANDUM ORDER denying 5 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Signed by Magistrate Judge Patrick J Hanna on 5/2/2018. (crt,Alexander, E)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
LAFAYETTE DIVISION

RAJEN MANIAR

CASE NO. 6:18-CV-00544 SEC P

VERSUS

UNASSIGNED DISTRICT JUDGE

WARDEN
PINE
PRAIRIE MAGISTRATE JUDGE HANNA
CORRECTIONAL CENTER
MEMORANDUM ORDER
I.

Background
Petitioner, Rajen Maniar (“Maniar”), filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas

Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. '2241, on April 20, 2018, contesting his continued
detention pending the outcome of his removal proceedings. [Rec. Doc. 1]
On April 23, 2018, Maniar filed a Motion for Order to Show Cause, arguing
that because his petition is not frivolous and demonstrates a prima facie entitlement
to writ of habeas corpus, this Court should issue an order to show cause and order
Respondent to file a return under 28 U.S.C. §2243 within three days. [Rec. Doc. 5]
On April 30, 2018, proof of service was filed into the record, establishing that
the summons was served on the only named defendant, the Pine Prairie Correctional
Center Warden, on April 23, 2018, and setting forth that his answer is due twentyone days from the date of service, or on May 14, 2018. [Rec. Doc. 6]

II.

Law and Analysis
It is well settled that the strict time limit prescribed by § 2243 is subordinate

to the Court's discretionary authority to set deadlines under Rule 41 of the Rules
Governing

§

2254

Cases.2

See

Romero v. Cole, No. 1:16-cv-

148, 2016 WL2893709, at *2 & n.4 (W.D. La. Apr. 13, 2016),

report

and

recommendation adopted, 2016 WL 2844013 (W.D. La. May 12, 2016) (collecting
authority, including Baker v. Middlebrooks, 2008 WL 938725, at *1 (N.D. Fla.
2008) (allowing sixty days to respond to a § 2241 habeas petition); McMullen v.
Caldwell, 2015 WL 1976402 (M.D. Ga. 2015); Hendon v. Burton, 2014WL 8186698
(E.D. Mich. 2014); Oliphant v. Quiros, 2010 WL 2011026 (D. Conn. 2010); Hickey
v. Adler, 2008 WL 3835764, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 15, 2008) (allowing sixty days to
respond to a § 2241 petition); Castillo v. Pratt, 162 F.Supp.2d 575, 576 (N.D. Tex.
2001) (“The discretion accorded by Rule 4 of the 2254 Rules ‘prevails' over the strict
time limits of 28 U.S.C. § 2243.”)).
This Court finds that “allowing Respondent time to answer his Petition—and
conducting a full review of all available and pertinent evidence—is warranted,

1

Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases states that, if the petition is not dismissed, the judge
must order the Respondent to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed time. The
Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 4, ¶ 4, discuss the Court's “greater flexibility [under Rule 4]
than under § 2243 in determining within what time period an answer must be made.”
2
Under Rule 1(b), the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases also apply to § 2241 habeas cases. See
Hickey v. Adler, 2008 WL 3835764, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2008); Castillo v. Pratt, 162 F.Supp.2d 575,
577 (N.D. Tex. 2001); Wyant v. Edwards, 952 F.Supp. 348 (S.D.W. Va. 1997).

commonplace according to the cases reviewed above, and reasonable under Rule 4.”
Romero v. Cole, supra at *2.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner’s Motion for Order to Show Cause [Rec.
Doc. 6] is hereby DENIED.
THUS DONE in Chambers on this 2nd day of May, 2018.

Patrick J. Hanna
United States Magistrate Judge