ORTEZ v. RODRIGUEZ et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM/ORDER TO ANSWER that the habeas petition is dismissed with prejudice as to respondents Winnie Chung, Jeh Johnson, and Richard J. Hughes; that the Clerk shall serve a copy of the petition (Dkt. No. 1) and this Order upon respondent Rodrig uez 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 States Attorneys Office, at the following email add ress: USANJ- [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 and which includes all affirmativ e defenses respondent seeks to invoke; 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; etc. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 12/27/16. (DD, ) N/M

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
MAURICIO RAFAEL ORTEZ,
Petitioner,

Civ. No. 16-9359 (KM)

V.

ORLANDO RODRIGUEZ, et a!,

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Respondents.

Petitioner is an immigration detainee currently lodged 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.

The proper sole respondent in this case is Orlando Rodriguez, who is the warden of the
Elizabeth Detention Center. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434-35 (2004). Therefore,
the petition will be dismissed with prejudice as to respondents Winnie Chung, Jeh Johnson, and
Richard J. Hughes.
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) has on the habeas petition.
Accordingly, IT IS this 27th day of December, 2016,
ORDERED that the habeas petition is dismissed with prejudice as to respondents Winnie
Chung, Jeh Johnson, and Richard J. Hughes; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall serve a copy of the petition (Dkt. No. 1) and this Order
upon respondent 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 (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) 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

2

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

KEVIN MCNULTY
United States District Judge

3