Estrella v. Tay-Taylor et al
Filing
13
OPINION & ORDER: The Court therefore grants Vigniero's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because Vigniero was never released from physical custody following a conviction for an enumerated offense, fd at 2, DHS lacks the authority to detain h im under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). See Straker, 2013 WL 6476889, at *9-*15, the reasoning of which is incorporated herein. If DHS wishes to continue to detain Vigniero during his removal proceedings, it can only do so under § 1226(a), which requi res a bond hearing. See Straker, 2013 WL 6476889, at * 15. The Government shall provide Vigniero with a bond hearing, consistent with § 1226(a), by April 7,2014. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. Mr. Vigniero need not submit a reply brief, and the Court will not hold argument as previously scheduled on April 11, 2014. (Signed by Judge Paul A. Engelmayer on 3/28/2014) (cd)
-----
'..,;, \
C~':·
DOt
~
\i
\;T
£LECTRO\ICALLY FILED
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DOC #:
I
DATE FtLED:
I
""'3{Mlt
~
------------------------------------------------------------------------){
LOIS VIGNIERO ESTRELLA,
Petitioner,
-v
14 Civ. 1571(PAE)
YVETTE TA Y-TAYLOR, in her official capacity as New
York Assistant Field Office Director for Immigration and
Customs Enforcement; DANIEL BIBLE, in his official
capacity as New York Deputy Field Office Director for
Immigration and Customs Enforcement; CHRISTOPHER
SHANAHAN, in his official capacity as New York Field
Office Director for us. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement; JEH JOHNSON, in is official capacity as
Secretary ofHomeland Security; ERIC HOLDER, in his
offiCial capacity as the Attorney General ofthe United
States; and the U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY,
OPINION & ORDER
Respondents.
------------------------------------------------------------------------){
PAUL A. ENGELMA YER, District Judge:
On March 7,2014, Lois Vigniero Estrella ("Vigniero") petitioned this Court for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention by the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security ("DHS"). Dkt. 2. Vigniero explained that DHS was detaining him under the
asserted authority of8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), which provides for the mandatory detention during
removal proceedings of certain aliens. Vigniero argues that § 1226(c) does not apply to him
because he was not detained "when ... released" from custody for an enumerated offense, as the
statute requires.
On March 14,2014, the Court approved the parties' proposed briefing schedule, with a
slight modification, and directed the parties to consult its recent opinion in Straker v. Jones, --- F.
1
Supp. 2d ---, 2013 WL 6476889 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10,2013). Dkt.6. In Straker, the Court
engaged in a painstaking statutory construction of § 1226(c) and concluded, inter alia, that DHS
acquires the duty and authority to subject an alien there defined to mandatory detention "when,"
as the statute says, "the alien is released." Straker, 2013 WL 6476889, at *5-*9. The Court
further concluded that an alien is "released" within the meaning of the statute when he or she is
released from "physical restraint," such as imprisonment, pursuant to a conviction for an
enumerated offense. Id. at *9-* 15. Because the petitioner, Straker, had never been imprisoned
or otherwise subjected to physical restraint pursuant to a conviction, the mandatory detention
statute, § 1226(c), did not apply to him, and DHS could only continue to detain him during his
removal proceedings under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), which requires a bond hearing. Straker, 2013
WL 6476889, at * 15. The Court accordingly granted Straker's petition for a writ of habeas
corpus and directed DHS to provide him with such a bond hearing within 10 days. Id. at * 16.
On March 26, 2014, the Government submitted a letter in which it, commendably,
acknowledged that, "[i]n the instant petition, Vigniero raises essentially the same legal
arguments, and his case presents many of the same facts, that were before the Court in Straker."
Dkt. 12 at 2. The Government went on to explain that for "the offense on which [DHS's]
removal charges are based, Vigniero was sentenced to three years of probation. Thus, like the
petitioner in Straker, Vigniero was not in physical custody following his conviction for a
removable offense." Id. (citations omitted). Although the Government expressed its
disagreement with Straker's holding that termination of a non-custodial sentence does not satisfy
the "release" requirement of the mandatory detention statute, it stated that, "in the event the
Court is inclined to follow its decision in Straker in the instant matter, respondents rely on the
2
Government's opposition papers in that matter ... and submit that the Court may decide this
matter without further briefing from the parties." fd at 2-3.
The Court thanks the Government for its candor and professionalism. The expedited
consideration that the Government's concession permits will save valuable time for the Court
and the parties, and, most importantly, will allow Vigniero to have his bond hearing sooner. The
Court agrees with the Government that the facts in this case are materially indistinguishable from
the facts in Straker, and sees no reason to revisit its considered decision in Straker.
The Court therefore grants Vigniero's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Because
Vigniero was never released from physical custody following a conviction for an enumerated
offense, fd at 2, DHS lacks the authority to detain him under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). See Straker,
2013 WL 6476889, at *9-*15, the reasoning of which is incorporated herein. IfDHS wishes to
continue to detain Vigniero during his removal proceedings, it can only do so under § 1226(a),
which requires a bond hearing. See Straker, 2013 WL 6476889, at * 15. The Government shall
provide Vigniero with a bond hearing, consistent with § 1226(a), by April 7,2014.
The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. Mr. Vigniero need not
submit a reply brief, and the Court will not hold argument as previously scheduled on April 11,
2014.
SO ORDERED.
pa~a:i~m~6fh/
United States District Judge
Dated: March 28,2014
New York, New York
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?