ROUSE v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al

Filing 26

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Clerk shall serve a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order upon respondent Charles Green by regular mail, with all costs of service advanced by the United States, and that the Clerk shall forward a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order to the Chief, Civil Division, United States Attorneys Office, at the following email address: USANJ- HabeasCases@usdoj.gov. Within 45 days of the date of the entry of this Order, Respondent shall file and serve an answer which responds to the allegations and grounds in the Petition and which includes all affirmative defenses respondent seeks to invoke, and within 30 days of receipt of the answer, Petitioner may file a reply to the answer; etc. Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 4/14/16. (sr, )

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY __________________________________________ : CLIFF EMMANUEL LECONTE, : : Petitioner, : : v. : : CHARLES GREEN, : : Respondent. : _________________________________________ : Civ. No. 16-1511 (JMV) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Petitioner, Cliff Emmanuel Leconte, is an immigration detainee currently detained at the Essex County Correctional Facility in Newark, New Jersey. He is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and has paid the $5.00 filing fee. Petitioner names the warden of the Essex County Correctional Facility, Charles Green, as the respondent in this case. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004). In his federal habeas petition, Petitioner challenges his current immigration detention, which he alleges has exceeded fifteen months. “Federal courts have habeas jurisdiction to examine the statutory and constitutional bases for an immigration detention unrelated to a final order of removal.” Ufele v. Holder, 473 F. App’x 144, 146 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517-18 (2003)); see also Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221, 226 (3d Cir. 2011). In accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, applicable to § 2241 cases through Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, this Court has screened the habeas petition for dismissal and determined that dismissal without an answer and the record on this issue is not warranted. Accordingly, IT IS this 14th day of April, 2016, ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order upon respondent Charles Green by regular mail, with all costs of service advanced by the United States; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk shall forward a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order to the Chief, Civil Division, United States Attorney’s Office, at the following email address: USANJ-HabeasCases@usdoj.gov; and it is further ORDERED that within forty-five (45) days of the date of the entry of this Order, Respondent shall file and serve an answer which responds to the allegations and grounds in the Petition and which includes all affirmative defenses respondent seeks to invoke, in addition to any other arguments respondent may make, the answer shall specifically address what impact, if any, Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York Cnty. Prison, 783 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2015) has on the Petition; and it is further ORDERED that Respondent shall file and serve with the answer certified copies of all documents necessary to resolve Petitioner’s claim(s) and affirmative defenses; and it is further ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of receipt of the answer, Petitioner may file a reply to the answer; and it is further ORDERED that within seven (7) days of Petitioner’s release, by parole or otherwise, Respondent shall electronically file a written notice of the same with the Clerk; and it is further ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order upon Petitioner by regular U.S. mail. s/ John Michael Vazquez JOHN MICHAEL VAZQUEZ United States District Judge

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?