St. Louis v. Heron et al

Filing 7

DECISION AND ORDER DIRECTING Respondents to file a supplemental briefing within 30 days of the entry of this Decision and Order and Petitioner shall file any response within 30 days of the filing of Respondents' supplemental briefing. Signed by Hon. Richard J. Arcara on 5/9/2011. (CMD)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
W ESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

HERVIC ST. LOUIS, A# 74-239-043,
Petitioner,

DECISION AND ORDER
10-CV-951A

v.

MARTIN HERON et al.,
Respondents.

On November 24, 2010, petitioner Hervic St. Louis filed a petition for a writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the legality of his
continued immigration detention. On February 7, 2011, respondents filed
papers in opposition to the petition. Respondents argue that petitioner’s
detention should continue under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(C) because he has
hindered his removal by failing to provide information that the British Consulate
needs to confirm his identity and to issue a travel document. As part of their
opposition to petitioner’s petition, respondents have filed some of the documents
that make up petitioner’s immigration file. (See generally Dkt. No. 4-2.)
Upon review of all of the documents filed so far, the Court finds that it
needs more detail about the extent to which petitioner allegedly has hindered his
removal. For example, the case comments from petitioner’s immigration file

suggest that petitioner has provided information that either did not lead to a
successful search for a birth certificate or that was demonstrably false. The
case comments further indicate that petitioner refused to give consent to release
certain school records that might help confirm his identity. Finally, petitioner’s
immigration file seems to note that petitioner has relatives in Great Britain who
are not helping to confirm petitioner’s identity, which would allow a travel
document to issue. This information seems to lend weight to respondent’s
argument in favor of continued detention, but the Court cannot tell whether it has
received all available information about exactly what the British Consulate still
needs to issue a travel document and why those needs remain outstanding.
Accordingly, the Court directs respondents to file supplemental briefing
within 30 days of entry of this Decision and Order that provides the following
information:
1.

The exact information that the British Consulate currently needs to
issue a travel document.

2.

A complete listing of information that petitioner has provided since
his immigration custody began on May 21, 2010 that relates to the
British Consulate’s needs but has proven to be false or unverifiable.
This listing shall include respondents’ assessment of the extent to
which petitioner has been providing false or unverifiable information
intentionally.
2

3.

To the extent that petitioner has family members who have refused
to help respondents gather information to obtain a travel document,
respondents shall clarify whether they are holding petitioner
responsible for such refusals and if so, why.

4.

A complete listing and chronology of every time since May 21, 2010
when respondents asked petitioner for information relating to the
British Consulate’s needs, and petitioner refused to provide that
information. This listing and chronology shall include refusals to
sign documents if the British Consulate needed those documents.

Petitioner shall file any responding papers within 30 days of the filing of
respondents’ supplemental briefing.
SO ORDERED.

s/ Richard J. Arcara
HONORABLE RICHARD J. ARCARA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DATED: May 9, 2011

3