Dogra v. Heron

Filing 9

DECISION AND ORDER denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Kapil Dogra. Clerk of Court to close case. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 12/1/2010. (JMB)

Download PDF
Dogra v. Heron Doc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W E S T E R N DISTRICT OF NEW YORK K A P IL DOGRA, A 072-487-024, P e titio n e r , D E C IS IO N AND ORDER 1 0 -C V -5 6 1 A v. MARTIN HERON, Assistant Field Office Director for B.F.D.F., R e s p o n d e n t. P e n d in g before the Court is a petition filed on June 21, 2010 by petitioner K a p il Dogra for habeas corpus relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. Respondent file d opposition papers on September 7, 2010. Petitioner filed reply papers on S e p te m b e r 20 and October 18, 2010. The pending petition is the third that p e titio n e r filed in a span of approximately nine months from late October 2009 to la te June 2010. (See generally Case Nos. 09-CV-65 and 09-CV-918.) Accordingly, and for the sake of brevity, the Court will assume familiarity with the fa c ts of petitioner's detention. The Court will note only that it denied petitioner's tw o prior petitions on the grounds that he was frustrating efforts by immigration o ffic ia ls to gather the information necessary to obtain a travel document from the C o n s u la te of India. Upon review of all of the documents submitted in support of or in opposition to the pending petition, the Court finds that petitioner's situation largely has not c h a n g e d . That said, the Court notes one new factual development that may b e g in to make this case resemble cases such as Gumbs v. Herron, No. 09-CV5 0 6 , 2009 W L 2958002 (W .D .N .Y . Sept. 11, 2009) (Arcara, C.J.). Specifically, re s p o n d e n t notes that petitioner was interviewed by a representative of the Indian C o n s u la te on June 30, 2010. W h e n petitioner was last interviewed by the Indian C o n s u la te on July 11, 2008, respondent found out in approximately two months th a t the Consulate needed more information from petitioner before it could p ro c e s s any request for a travel document. (See Dkt. No. 4-3 at 37.) Here, more th a n two months have passed since the June 30, 2010 interview. Respondent h a s not indicated what the result of that interview was or whether the Consulate n o w has the information from petitioner that it needs to begin processing the a p p lic a tio n for a travel document. Clarifying whether the Consulate has the in fo rm a tio n that it needs is important because all of respondent's complaints a b o u t petitioner's stonewalling would be moot if the Consulate has decided that it d o e s not need any more information. Petitioner's papers are not helpful on this is s u e , because they do not help clarify what information he provided the C o n s u la te that he may not have provided previously. B e c a u s e petitioner has not set forth adequately what he may have said at h is June 30, 2010 interview with the Consulate to remedy his previous 2 noncompliance, the Court denies the pending petition. However, this denial is without prejudice to re-file after 90 days from the date of entry of this Order. Both p a rtie s are cautioned that if petitioner re-files a request for habeas corpus relief th e n the petitioner will be required to explain what additional information he p ro vid e d at his June 30, 2010 interview, while respondent will be required to e xp la in the outcome of both that interview and of the annual review of petitioner's file , which last occurred in December 2009 and likely is due soon. SO ORDERED. s/ Richard J. Arcara HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE DATED: December 1, 2010 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?