LEZAMA v. AVILES et al
Filing
2
OPINION. Signed by Judge Susan D. Wigenton on 4/10/20132. (nr, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
______________________________
:
JAMIE A. LEZAMA,
:
:
Civil Action No. 13-2059 (SDW)
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
OPINION
:
OSCAR AVILES et al.,
:
:
Respondents.
:
April 10, 2013
______________________________:
Petitioner Jamie A. Lezama (“Petitioner”), a pre-removal-order alien detainee,
filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
challenging Petitioner’s detention. See Docket Entry No. 1. Petitioner asserts 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 (“INA”), codified as 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). 1
At this juncture, the case law accumulated at the district court level of this Circuit
is inconclusive as to the issue raised by Petitioner. Compare, e.g., Kerr v. Elwood, 2012
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160250 (D.N.J. Nov. 8, 2012); Charles v. Shanahan, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 145072 (D.N.J. Oct. 9, 2012); Kporlor v. Hendricks, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
145387 (D.N.J. Oct. 9, 2012); Campbell v. Elwood, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139203
(D.N.J. Sept. 27, 2012), with, e.g., Espinoza-Loor v. Holder, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
91307 (D.N.J. July 2, 2012); Diaz v. Muller, 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.
1
Because the only proper respondent to a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is the warden of the facility
where the prisoner is being held, the Petition will be dismissed as to all Respondents except for the warden.
See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004) (“The federal habeas statute straightforwardly provides
that the proper respondent to a habeas petition is ‘the person who has custody over [the petitioner’].”)
Dec. 30, 2011). Non-frivolous arguments have been offered by both sides. See, e.g.,
Martinez v. Muller, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138476, at *16 (D.N.J. Sept. 25, 2012)
(granting writ but noting that “the arguments that Respondents have advanced in response
to the instant petition are not meritless”); Burns v. Weber, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3756,
at *19 (D.N.J. Jan. 19, 2010) (“The fact that [some courts have] disagreed with the BIA’s
interpretation of the relevant statute does not render Respondents’ position in this matter
substantially unjustified”); Hyung Woo Park v. Hendricks, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
106153, at *20 (D.N.J. Nov. 12, 2009) (same).
Case law accumulated at the circuit level suggests that Petitioner’s challenges
may lack merit. While the First Circuit noted, in dictum, that such challenges may merit
habeas relief, see Saysana v. Gillen, 590 F.3d 7, 13 (1st Cir. 2009) (observing, albeit in a
different context, that “[t]he statutory language embodies the judgment of Congress that
such an individual should not be returned to the community pending disposition of his
removal proceedings”), the Fourth Circuit held that the “when the alien is released”
language was ambiguous, and found that detention pursuant to § 1226(c) does not require
the Government to act immediately upon a criminal alien’s release. See 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”).
The Third Circuit has yet to rule on the interpretation of the mandatory detention
statute. In fact, the issue of how the “when the alien is released” language of § 1226(c)
should be interpreted is currently pending before the Third Circuit. See Sylvain v.
Holder, U.S.C.A. Index No. 11-3357 (3d Cir. docketed Aug. 31, 2011). 2
2
Oral arguments in Sylvain v. Holder, U.S.C.A. Index No. 11-3357, were held on March 19, 2013.
2
Because conclusive appellate guidance as to the issues raised in the Petition
appears forthcoming, this Court finds it prudent to stay the proceedings at bar in order to
allow Petitioner an opportunity to: (a) assess the Third Circuit’s decision once it is
entered; and (b) amend his Petition accordingly, if Petitioner so elects.
An appropriate Order follows.
s/Susan D. Wigenton_________
Susan D. Wigenton,
United States District Judge
3
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?