MANN v. TAYLOR et al

Filing 2

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that the Clerk of the Court shall serve copies of the Petition and this Order upon Eric Taylor, by regular mail, with all costs of service advanced by the United States, and shall forward a copy of the Petition and this Order to Chief, Civil Division, United States Attorneys Office, at the following email address: USANJ-HabeasCasesusdoj.gov. Within 45 days after the date of entry of this Order, Respondent shall electronically file a full and complete ANSWER to said Peti tion, which responds to the factual and legal allegations of the Petition, and that Petitioner may file and serve a reply in support of the Petition within 30 days after the answer is filed; etc. Signed by Judge Madeline Cox Arleo on 8/30/17. (sr, )(N/M)

UNITED STATES D1STR1CT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
NIAM MANN,

Civil Action No. 17-6141 (MCA)

Petitioner,
v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ERIC TAYLOR, et al.,
Respondents.

This matter having been opened by Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
challenging his prolonged detention pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
habeas Petition was submitted

§

2241 (ECF No. I). Petitioner’s

coinsel andwasdoeketed on August 15, 2017. (Id.) The

Petition states that Petitioner was previously detained for more than six months under a final

order of removal and was released from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) custody
in 2009. (ECF No. 1, Pet. at ¶ 5-6.) Petitioner alleges that he has been cooperating with the
Pakistani consulate to obtain a travel document to Pakistan. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Petitioner was recently
taken into custody by ICE on July 20, 2017. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Petitioner alleges ICE did not have a
travel document when they took him into custody and that his removal is not imminent, (Id. at
1

¶

10-12, 15.)
“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears

legally insufficient on its face.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); United Slates v.

Petitioner also alleges he has health problems and appears to allege that he is receiving
inadequate medical care at Hudson County Correctional Center. (Id. at ¶J 13-14.) Although
denial of adequate medical care may form the basis for an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it may
not form the basis for a habeas claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
1

Thomas, 221 F.3d 430, 437 (3d Cir. 2000). Rule 4 requires a district court to examine a habeas
petition prior to ordering an answer and “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the
petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases, applicable to

§

2241 cases through Rule 1(b). Dismissal without the filing of an

answer is warranted “if it appears on the face of the petition that petitioner is not entitled to
relief.” Id.; see also McFarland, 512 U.S. at 856.
The Court has examined the Petition and determined that dismissal prior to submission of
an answer and the record is not warranted.

$

IT IS THEREFORE, on thi6’$$ day of

/Ci1/tm

,

2017,

ORDERED that, in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases,
applicable to

§ 2241

cases through Rule 1(b), this Court has examined the Petition and

determined that dismissal prior to submission of an answer and the record is not warranted; the
Court, however, directs the Clerk of the Court to dismiss all non-warden Respondents from the
case; and it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve copies of the Petition and this Order
upon Eric Taylor, by regular mail, with all costs of service advanced by the United States; and it
is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall forward a copy of the Petition and this
Order to Chief, Civil Division, United States Attorney’s Office, at the following email address:
USANJ-HabeasCasesusdoj .gov; and it is further

2

ORDERED that, within 45 days after the date of entry of this Order, Respondent shall

electronically file a full and complete answer to said Petition, which responds to the factual and
legal allegations of the Petition; and it is further
ORDERED that the answer shall state the statutory authority for Petitioner’s detention,
see 28 U.S.C.

§

2243, and provide the relevant legal analysis; and it is further

ORDERED that Respondent shall raise by way of the answer any appropriate defenses

which Respondent wishes to have the Court consider, including, but not limited to, exhaustion of
administrative remedies, and also including, with respect to the asserted defenses, relevant legal
arguments with citations to appropriate legal authority; and it is further
ORDERED that Respondent shall electronically file with the answer certified copies of

the administrative record and all other documents relevant to Petitioner’s claims; and it is further
ORDERED that all exhibits to the Answer must be identified by a descriptive name in

the electronic filing entry, for example:
“Exhibit #1 Transcript of [type of proceeding] held on XX/XX/XXXX” or
“Exhibit #2 Opinion entered on XX/XX/XXXX by Judge YYYY”; and it is further
ORDERED that Petitioner may file and serve a reply in support of the Petition within 30

days after the answer is filed; and it is further
ORDERED that, within 7 days after any change in Petitioner’s custody or immigration

status, be it release or otherwise, Respondents shall electronically file a written notice of the
same with the Clerk of the Court; and it is further

3

ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve this Order on Petitioner by regular
mail.

Maãline Cox Arleo, District Judge
United States District Court

4