ROCHESTER v. GREEN et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO ANSWER - ORDERED that the habeas petition is dismissed with prejudice as to respondents John Tsoukaris and Loretta E. Lynch; and it is further ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of the date of the entry of this Order, respon dent 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 it is further ORDERED that within thirty (30) days of receipt of the answer, petitioner may file a reply to the answer, etc. LORETTA LYNCH and JOHN TSOUKARIS terminated.(Copies Sent). Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 4/12/2016. (seb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

MARLON ROCHESTER,
Petitioner,

Civ. No. 16-1747(KM)

V.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CHARLES GREEN, et al.,
Respondents.

Petitioner is an immigration detainee currently lodged at the Essex County Correctional
Facility in Newark, New Jersey. lie is proceeding with pro se with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to

§ 2241.

The proper sole respondent in this case is Charles Green, who is the warden of the Essex
County Correctional Facility. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004). Therefore,
petition will be dismissed with prejudice as to respondents John Tsoukaris and Loretta Lynch.
Petitioner challenges his current immigration detention in his federal habeas petition.
“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 fbr dismissal and
detennined that dismissal without an answer and the record on this issue is not warranted. In
addition to any arguments that respondent may make in the answer, respondent shall specifically

address what impact, if any, Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York Cnhy. Prison, 783 F.3d 469 (3d Cir.
20 15), has on the habeas petition.
Accordingly, iT IS this 12th day of April, 2016,
ORI)ERED that the habeas petition is dismissed with prejudice as to respondents John
Tsoukaris and Loretta E. Lynch; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of the petition (Dkt. 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
ORI)EREI) that the Clerk shall forward a copy of the petition (Dkt. No. 1) and this Order
to the Chief, Civil Division, United States Attorney’s Office, at the following email address:
USANJ-flaheasCasesusdoj.gov; and it is further
ORDERED that within thirty (30) 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
ORI)ERED 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

7

ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve this Order on petitioner by regular U.S. mail.

United States District Judge

3