CARDELLA POYCE v. TSOUKARIS et al

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM/ORDER REOPENING CASE; that the habeas petition is dismissed with prejudice as to respondent John Tsoukaris, Jeh Johnson, Loretta Lynch, and the United States Department of Homeland Security; that the Clerk shall serve a copy of the petit ion (Dkt. No. 1) and this Order upon respondent Green by regular mail, with all costs of service advanced by the United States; that the Clerk shall forward a copy of the petition (Dkt. No. 1) and this Order to the Chief, Civil Division, United S tates Attorneys Office, at the following email address: [e-mail]; 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; within thirty (30) days of receipt of the answer, petitioner may file a reply to the answer; etc. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 12/19/16. (DD, ) N/M

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
ROGER CARDELLA POYCE,
Petitioner,

Civ. No. 16-8676 (KM)

V.

JOHN TSOUKARIS, et al,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Respondents.

Petitioner is an immigration detainee currently lodged 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. Previously, this matter was administratively terminated as

petitioner’s application to proceed informapauperis was incomplete. Subsequently, petitioner
paid the $5.00 filing fee such that the Clerk will be ordered to reopen this case.
The proper sole respondent in this case is Charles Green, who is the warden of the Essex
County Correctional Facility. See Rumfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-3 5 (2004). Therefore,
the petition will be dismissed with prejudice as to respondent John Tsoukaris, Jeh Johnson,
Loretta Lynch, and the United States Department of Homeland Security.
Petitioner challenges his current immigration detention in his federal habeas petition
amongst his arguments. “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. in addition to any arguments that respondent may make in the answer in response to
petitioner’s claims, respondent shall specifically address what impact, if any, Chavez-Alvarez v.
Warden York Cnty. Prison, 783 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2015) and Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678
(2001) have on the habeas petition.
Accordingly, IT IS this 19th day of December, 2016,
ORDERED that the Clerk shall reopen this case; and it is further
ORDERED that the habeas petition is dismissed with prejudice as to respondent John
Tsoukaris, Jeh Johnson, Loretta Lynch, and the United States Department of Homeland Security;
and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of the petition (Dkt. No. 1) and this Order
upon respondent 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 (Dkt. No. 1) and this Order
to the Chief, Civil Division, United States Attorney’s Office, at the following email address:
USANJ-HabeasCasesusdoj.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) and Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) have on the petition; and it is further

2

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 shall serve this Order on petitioner by regular U.S. mail.

[
KEVIN MCNULTY
United States District Judge

3