LLOYD v. HENDRICKS, et al
Filing
24
OPINION. Signed by Judge Esther Salas on 10/22/13. (DD, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
JOSEPH LLOYD,
Petitioner,
Civil Action No. 12-2666 (ES)
v.
OPINION
ROY L. HENDRICKS, et al.,
Respondents.
On May 3, 2012, Petitioner Joseph Lloyd ("Petitioner"), then a pre-removal-order alien
detainee, filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
challenging his detention. (D.E. No. 1). Petitioner asserted that he was being unlawfully held in
custody as a result of Respondents' erroneous interpretation of the mandatory detention
provision contained in§ 236(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified as 8 U.S.C. §
1226(c).
On February 5, 2013, this Court issued an order staying this matter in light of Hosh v.
Lucero, 680 F.3d 375, 384 (4th Cir. 2012) (concluding "that the BIA's interpretation of §
1226(c) ... was reasonable, and must be accorded deference"), and analogous prior proceedings
in this District finding the challenge fostered by Petitioner without merit. See, e.g., EspinozaLoor v. Holder, No. 12-4160, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91307 (D.N.J. July 2, 2012); Diaz v.
Muller, No. 11-4029, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85971 (D.N.J. Aug. 4, 2011); Desrosiers v.
Hendricks, No. 11-4643, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154971 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2011). Noting that the
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit was about to offer conclusive guidance as to the proper
interpretation of§ 1226(c) in Sylvain v. Holder, U.S.C.A. Index No. 11-3357 (3d Cir. docketed
Aug. 31, 2011 ), this Court stayed this matter to allow Petitioner an opportunity to: (a) assess the
Court of Appeals' decision, once it was entered; and (b) file an amended § 2241 petition if
Petitioner so elected.
On April 22, 2013, the Court of Appeals resolved the issue at bar, holding that, even if 8
U.S.C.S. § 1226(c)(l) called for detention when an alien was released, nothing in the statute
suggested that the immigration officials would lose their authority to effectuate the removal
proceeding and mandatorily detain the alien if they delayed. See Sylvain v. AG of the United
States, -- F.3d --, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7937 (3d Cir. Apr. 22, 2013). The Court of Appeals,
therefore, ruled that an alien raising the claim fostered here was not entitled to habeas relief
simply because the alien asserted that the immigration officials delayed taking him/her into
custody. See id.
Accordingly, and in light of the Third Circuit's ruling in Sylvain, Petitioner's challenge is
without merit. However, this Court cannot rule out that Petitioner might have envisioned a claim
somewhat different from that resolved in Sylvain or, in the alternative, that Petitioner's
circumstances have so changed as to provide a basis for an alternative habeas claim. Therefore,
the Court will dismiss this matter without prejudice to Petitioner raising a habeas challenge not
precluded by Sylvain in a new and separate § 2241 petition.
An appropriate Order follows.
Dated:
2
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?