LOZANO v. GREENE

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM/ORDER TO ANSWER that the Clerk shall update the Courts docket to reflect that Orlando Rodriguez is the proper respondent in this matter; that the Clerk shall serve a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order upon respondent Orlando Rodriguez by regular mail, with all costs of service advanced by the United States; 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 emai l address: USANJ- [e-mail]; that within forty-five (45) days of the date of the entry of this Order, Respondent shall file and serve an answer; that Respondent shall file and serve with the answer certified copies of all documents necessary to resolve Petitioners claim(s) and affirmative defenses; that within thirty (30) days of receipt of the answer, Petitioner may file a reply to the answer; that within seven (7) days of Petitioners release, by parole or otherwise, Respondent shall electronically file a written notice of the same with the Clerk Signed by Judge John Michael Vazquez on 8/18/16. (DD, ) N/M

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
__________________________________________
:
:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
:
:
ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ,
:
:
Respondent.
:
_________________________________________ :
RONALD D LOZANO,

Civ. No. 16-4724 (JMV)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Petitioner, Ronald D. Lozano, is an immigration detainee currently detained at the
Elizabeth Detention Center in Elizabeth, 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 Elizabeth Detention Center, Orlando Rodriguez1, 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
1

The Court notes that the caption of the Petition names Charles Green as Respondent. However,
in the body of his Petition, Petitioner names Orlando Rodriguez, the warden of the Elizabeth
Detention Center, as Respondent. (Pet. 6, ¶ 9, ECF No. 1). Because the proper respondent in a
petition for writ of habeas corpus is the warden of the facility where a prisoner is being held, see
Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 426, the Court will update the docket to reflect that Orlando Rodriguez is
Respondent in this matter.

§ 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. 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 Cnty. Prison, 783 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2015), has on the habeas petition.
Accordingly, IT IS this 18th day of August, 2016,
ORDERED that the Clerk shall update the Court’s docket to reflect that Orlando
Rodriguez is the proper respondent in this matter; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order
upon respondent Orlando Rodriguez 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: [e-mail]; 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