MANCEBO PEREZ v. GREEN

Filing 5

MEMORANDUM ND ORDER granting in part respondent's request for an extension of time to file an answer to the habeas; respondent's shall file and serve its answer to the habeas corpus on or before 4/1/2016. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 2/16/2016. (nr, ) Modified on 2/16/2016 (nr).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

PEDRO J. MANCEBO PEREZ,
Petitioner,

Civ. No. 16-0438 (KM)

V.

CHARLES GREEN,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Respondent.

Petitioner is an immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241.

On January 29, 2016, this Court ordered the respondent to

answer the habeas petition within thirty days. On February 12, 2016, two weeks prior to that
thirty-day deadline, respondent filed a letter requesting a sixty-day extension of time to file its
answer. Respondent states that he has not yet received the necessary materials from the agency,
and that the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to this case has a heavy caseload.
I will grant respondent’s request in part, and give a 30-day extension. I understand that it
sometimes takes time to receive documents from the relevant agencies, and I am cognizant of the
heavy caseloads that Assistant United States Attorneys have. I am also mindful, however, that
the petitioner is in immigration detention; without of course determining the facts, I note that the
petition relates that the petitioner was detained in 2013-14, and that the current detention began
in June 2015. The length of detention, of course, may bear on the outcome of this case. See, e.g.,
Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York Cnty. Prison, 783 F.3d 469, 478 (3d Cir. 2015) (noting
sometime after six months and certainly by the time petitioner had been detained for a year that
the burdens to petitioner’s liberties outweighed any justification for using presumptions to detain
him without bond).

I will grant a 30-day extension of the respondent’s time to answer. No further extensions
will be granted absent compelling circumstances. Any demonstration of such compelling
circumstances shall include a detailed accounting of the specific steps taken to compLy with the
deadline as well as the circumstances preventing the Assistant United States Attorney, or some
other AUSA to whom the case could be reassigned, from complying with this extended deadline.
Accordingly, IT IS this 16th day of February, 2016,
ORDERED that respondent’s request for an extension of time to file an answer to the
habeas petition (Dkt. No. 4) is granted in part; and it is further
ORDERED that respondent shall tile and serve its answer to the habeas petition on or
before April 1, 2016.

}
EVIN MCNULTY
United States District Judge

2