Ricketts v. Heron et al

Filing 29

ORDER denying 14 Motion to Expedite; denying 26 Motion to Compel; granting 27 Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to 6/4/2010.. Signed by Hon. H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr on 5/5/2010. (KER)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JUNIOR M. RICKETTS, A#027-024-434 P e titio n e r, v. M AR T IN HERON, Facilities Director, et al., R e s p o n d e n ts . 09-CV-0288A(Sr) DECISION AND ORDER T h is matter was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. Richard J. Arcara, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), for all pretrial matters and to hear and report upon d is p o s itiv e motions. Dkt. #28. P la in tiff commenced this action pro se, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, c h a lle n g in g his detention by the Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Im m ig ra tio n and Custom Enforcement ("ICE"), since September 5, 2006. Dkt. #1. Currently before the Court is petitioner's motion to expedite the Court's d e te rm in a tio n of his petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. #14); motion to compel d is c o v e ry (Dkt. #26); and motion for an extension of time to reply to respondents' s u p p le m e n ta l opposition to his petition for writ of heabeas corpus until the motion to c o m p e l has been resolved. Dkt. #27. For the following reasons, the motion to expedite is denied; the motion to compel is denied; and the motion for an extension of time is g r a n te d . BACKGROUND B y Decision and Order entered January 13, 2009, the Court determined th a t petitioner's continued detention was permissible because petitioner had obstructed e ffo rts to effect his removal to Jamaica. 07-CV-138 at Dkt. #23. Specifically, the Court d e te rm in e d that petitioner has obstructed Respondent's attempts to effectuate h is removal by directing the Consulate General of Jamaica n o t to issue travel documents to him and advising the C o n s u la te General of Jamaica that he is not a citizen of J a m a ic a , causing Jamaica to investigate petitioner's n a tio n a lity before deciding whether to issue travel documents fo r petitioner. Petitioner has repeatedly failed to cooperate w ith Respondent's requests to assist in obtaining travel d o c u m e n ts and continues to reference fraudulent documents in support of his claim to United States citizenship, prompting J a m a ic a to advise Respondent that Jamaica will not issue a tra v e l document until petitioner's identity is confirmed. Dkt. #23, pp.11-12 (internal citations omitted). The Court of Appeals for the Second C irc u it denied petitioner's motions for a certificate of appealability and in forma pauperis s ta tu s and dismissed petitioner's appeal by Order entered April 13, 2009. By letter dated December 21, 2009, the Deputy Consul General of Jamaica a d v is e d that T h e Jamaican immigration authorities have now confirmed th a t a verification exercise has been completed in your case a n d that you have been confirmed as an American. They a d v is e that you should remain in the United States of America -2- and your relatives contacted to authenticate your claim to U n ite d States citizenship. Note was taken of the fact that th e US Embassy in Jamaica "also investigated and found th a t the subject was indeed an American citizen, born P a u l Milton Miles but changed his name because of his r e l i g io n . " It was observed that you were repatriated to the United States in February 2003 after you were provided with a United S ta te s passport by the US Embassy. D k t. #15, p.13 (emphasis in original). Respondent argues that this decision is based upon petitioner's provision of fa ls e information to the Jamaican Consulate. Dkt. #18, ¶ 38. Specifically, Respondent a rg u e s that petitioner fraudulently assumed the identity of United States citizen Paul M ilto n Miles, who was born on August 31, 1964, in Brooklyn, New York following his a d m is s io n into the United States as a nonimmigrant in 1982. Dkt. #18, ¶ 40. Subsequently, petitioner applied for and was issued a United States passport u n d e r the identity of Paul Milton Miles. Dkt. #18, ¶¶ 41-42. Thereafter, petitioner legally c h a n g e d Paul Milton Miles' name to Junior Mohammed Ricketts. Dkt. #18, ¶ 43. The U n ite d States Department of State amended the passport to reflect the name change on A u g u s t 23, 1984. Dkt. #18, ¶ 44. In November of 1990, petitioner began employment as an eligibility s p e c ia lis t with the New York City Human Resources Administration. Dkt. #18, ¶ 45. An O ffic e of Inspector General investigation conducted by the New York City Human R e s o u rc e s Administration discovered that petitioner had changed post office box -3- addresses assigned to homeless clients in the W e lfa re Management System database to h is own address so that he received the checks issued to clients, and that petitioner had a ls o deposited checks intended for AIDS patients into his own bank account. Dkt. #18, ¶ 4 6 . The investigation determined that petitioner had embezzed $111,052.38 between D e c e m b e r 1990 and June 1992. Dkt. #18, ¶ 47. On October 16, 1992, the Office of Inspector General executed a federal s e a rc h warrant at petitioner's residence and discovered Jamaican passport number 5 6 5 2 2 7 issued June 24, 1983 by the Jamaican Consulate in New York in the name of J u n io r Nathaniel Ricketts, bearing petitioner's photo, and noting that Junior Nathaniel R ic k e tts previously traveled on a Jamaican Passport No. 114877. Dkt. #18, ¶ 49. Jamaican Passport No. 114877 was issued to Junior Nathaniel Rickets, born October 12, 1 9 5 5 , in St. Andrew, Jamaica. Dkt. #18, ¶ 51. The Office of Inspector General interviewed the mother of Paul Milton M ile s , Lizzie Mae Page of Brooklyn, New York. Dkt. #18, ¶ 52. Ms. Page informed the O ffic e of Inspector General that she had not had contact with her son since 1986 and d e n ie d that a photograph of petitioner was her son. Dkt. #18, ¶ 52. The Office of In s p e c to r General also obtained an arrest photo of Paul Milton Miles which does not d e p ic t petitioner. Dkt. #18, ¶ 52. Contrary to the letter from the Jamaican Consulate, the American Embassy in Kingston Jamaica denies issuing petitioner a travel document in 2003. Dkt. #18, ¶ 65. -4- DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS P e titio n e r's discovery demands seek: 1 . a copy of the letter addressed to the Head of the B u ffa lo Federal Detention Facility from Deputy Consul G e n e ra l Tracy Blackwood on December 21, 2009 re g a rd in g the result of the Jamaican investigation of p e titio n e r's identity; 2 . a ll I-94 documents relating to the use of Junior N a th a n ie l Ricketts' Jamaican passport number 565227 b e tw e e n May 1, 1980 and January 1, 1983; 3 . th e I-94 document indicating the place, time and p a s s p o rt number used to enter the United States as a n o n im m ig ra n t between October 1, 1982 and D e c e m b e r 31, 1982; 4 . th e December 28, 1992 statement of Lizzie Page and d o c u m e n ts used to identify her as the mother of Paul M ilto n Milton Miles; and 5 . a copy of the New York State Police records and arrest p h o to of Paul Milton Miles. Dkt. #26. "A habeas petitioner, unlike the usual civil litigant in federal court, is not e n title d to discovery as a matter of ordinary course." Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 9 0 4 (1997). The "broad discovery provisions" of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are n o t applicable in habeas proceedings. Harris v. Nelson, 394 U.S. 286, 295 (1969). Rather, discovery in habeas proceedings is governed by the following: A party shall be entitled to invoke the processes of discovery a v a ila b le under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure if, and to th e extent that, the judge in the exercise of his discretion and fo r good cause shown grants leave to do so, but not o t h e r w is e . -5- Bracy, 520 U.S. at 904. "Good cause" exists where "specific allegations before the court s h o w reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to d e m o n s tra te that he is . . . entitled to relief." Id. at 908-09 (internal quotation omitted). In assessing whether a habeas petitioner is entitled to discovery, courts m u s t first identify the "essential elements" of the petitioner's claim. Id. In the instant case, it is important to note that this Court lacks jurisdiction over any claim th a t petitioner is a United States citizen. Such a claim was required to be brought before th e Court of Appeals for the judicial circuit in which the Immigration Judge completed the p ro c e e d in g s within 30 days of the final order of removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b); see Tam v. D e p 't of Homeland Security, No. 05-CV-473, 2006 W L 839425, at *2 (W .D .N .Y. Mar. 28, 2 0 0 6 )("re v ie w of nationality claims in the context of removal orders must occur, in the first in s ta n c e , in the court of appeals."). Petitioner defaulted his appeal for judicial review of the Immigration Judge's d e te rm in a tio n that he was not a United States citizen. See Dkt. #00-3270 at h ttp s ://e c f.c a 3 .u s c o u rts .g o v /c m e c f. Petitioner presented his claim of citizenship to the C o u rt of Appeals for the Third Circuit again in 2006, but the Court of Appeals rejected his c la im as untimely. 07-CV-138 at Dkt. #5, ¶10 & p.51. Petitioner subsequently moved to re o p e n his immigration removal proceedings before the Board of Immigration Appeals a n d appealed the denial of that motion to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and th e United States Supreme Court, which denied certiorari. 07-CV-138 at Dkt. #20, ¶¶ 6-9 & Dkt. #20-2, pp.16-17. By Order entered February 9, 2010, the Court of Appeals for the -6- Third Circuit denied petitioner's second motion to reinstate his petition for review. Dkt. # 2 4 , p.9. This Court cannot circumvent those determinations. As a result, the only issue properly before this Court is the propriety of p e titio n e r's continued detention. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (The writ of habeas corpus s h a ll not extend to a prisoner unless he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or la w s or treaties of the United States). However, with the exception of the first document re q u e s t, which seeks a document petitioner provided to the Court and, therefore, already p o s s e s s e s , petitioner's document demands seek documents relating to his claim of U n ite d States citizenship rather than the likelihood of his removal to Jamaica. As a result, th e motion to compel is denied. CONCLUSION F o r the foregoing reasons, petitioner's motion to compel (Dkt. #26), is d e n ie d . Petitioner's motion for an extension of time to file a reply memorandum in further s u p p o rt of his petition (Dkt. #27), is granted. Petitioner shall file his reply no later than J u n e 4, 2010. Petitioner's motion to expedite (Dkt. #14), is denied inasmuch as p e titio n e r's motion to compel and motion for an extension of time has necessarily delayed re s o lu tio n of the merits of his petition. Dated: B u ffa lo , New York M a y 5, 2010 s/ H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. H. KENNETH SCHROEDER, JR. U n ite d States Magistrate Judge -7-

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?