ULLOA v. WARDEN OF ESSEX COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY et al
MEMORANDUM/ORDER that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF Nos. 1, 3) is GRANTED; that an Immigration Judge shall provide Petitioner with an individualized bond hearing, pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226, within ten (10) days of the date of this Order; that the Government shall report the outcome of the bond proceeding to this Court within seven (7) days after it occurs; that the Clerk shall CLOSE the file. Signed by Judge Madeline C. Arleo on 6/21/16. (DD, ) N/M
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civil Action No. 16-026 (MCA)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter having been opened to the Court by Petitioner’s filing of a Petition for Writ
of Habeas Corpus challenging his prolonged detention pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1, 3), and it appearing that:
I. Petitioner has stated in his Petition that he has been detained without a bond hearing by
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) since May 12, 2015.’ (Id., Pet. at pg. 3.)
2. On April 12, 2016, the Court directed the Respondent to state the basis for Petitioner’s
detention and to respond to the allegations in the Petition. (ECF No. 5.)
3. On May 26, 2016, Assistant United States Attorney David E. Dauenheimer filed a letter
response on behalf of Respondent. (ECF No. 7, Letter from AUSA Dauenheimer.) The letter
informed the Court that Petitioner is detained pending his removal proceedings pursuant to 8
1226(c). (Id. at 2.) The letter also states as follows: “based upon the current facts, the
United States does not object to the Court remanding this matter to the Immigration Judge, and
ordering a bond hearing for the Petitioner in accordance with applicable law and regulation.”
Petitioner initially omitted the signature page of his Petition. He subsequently submitted the
(Id. (citing 8 C.F.R.
4. As noted in Mr. Dauenheimer’s letter, the Third Circuit recently held that the Due
Process Clause limits the Government’s authority under 8 U.S.C.
1226(c) to detain an alien
without bond once the burdens to the alien’s “liberties outweigh any justification for using
presumptions to detain him without bond to further the goals of the statute.” Chavez-Alvarez v.
Warden York County Prison, 783 F.3d 469, 478 (3d Cir. 2015) (finding that “beginning
sometime after the six-month timeframe considered by Demore [v. Kim, 538 U. S. 510 (2003)],
and certainly by the time Chavez—Alvarez had been detained for one year, the burdens to
ChavezAlvarez’s liberties outweighed any justification for using presumptions to detain him
without bond to further the goals of the statute”). The Third Circuit noted, however, that the
determination of reasonableness of detention is “highly fact-specific.” Id. at 474, 476-477
(explaining that the Petitioner’s good faith, the bona fides of Petitioner’s challenge, and the
reasonableness of the Government’s conduct matter in determining when “a tipping point had
been reached on the reasonableness of this detention”).
5. Here, Petitioner contends that he has been held in ICE custody since May 12, 2015. (Pet.
at 3.) Respondent has informed the Court that Petitioner’s detention is governed by
and does not object to Petitioner’s request for a bond hearing. For these reasons, and because
Petitioner’s case does not appear meaningfully distinguishable from Chavez-Alvarez, this Court
will grant the Petition and order an Immigration Judge to conduct a bond hearing for Petitioner.
IT IS, THEREFORE, on this
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF Nos. 1, 3) is GRANTED;
and it is further
ORDERED that an Immigration Judge shall provide Petitioner with an individualized
bond hearing, pursuant to 8 U.S.C.
1226, within ten (10) days of the date of this Order; and it is
ORDERED that the Government shall report the outcome of the bond proceeding to this
Court within seven (7) days after it occurs; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the parties, and shall
close the file.
Madeline Cox Arleo, District Judge
United States District Court
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?