Hassoun v. Session et al

Filing 22

DECISION AND ORDER: Petitioner's Motion for Appointment of Counsel 8 is DENIED AS MOOT. Petitioner's two motions for discovery 9 10 are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Respondents shall file a wr itten response to Petitioner's Motion for the Court to Order the Return of Legal Data 12 . Petitioner may file a written reply within 15 days after he receives Respondents' response.SO ORDERED. Signed by Hon. Frank P. Geraci, Jr. on 10/02/2018. (MFM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
ADHAM HASSOUN,
Petitioner,
Case # 18-CV-586-FPG
v.
DECISION AND ORDER
MR. JEFF SESSIONS, Attorney General of
the United States, et al.,
Respondents.

INTRODUCTION
Petitioner Adham Hassoun, a civil immigration detainee detained at the Buffalo Federal
Detention Facility, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
ECF No. 1; ECF No. 3 (amended petition). He claims that he has been in U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement custody beyond the statutory removal period and that his detention violates
his constitutional rights. See ECF No. 3. Currently pending before the Court are four motions
filed by Petitioner.
On June 29, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel. ECF No. 8. This
Court had denied without prejudice Petitioner’s previous motion seeking such relief, finding that
it was premature. ECF No. 5. Since filing his subsequent motion, however, Petitioner has obtained
representation and his counsel have filed appearances in this action. See ECF Nos. 18, 19.
On July 9, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion for the Court to Order Respondents to Produce
Discovery, seeking “[t]he [d]iscovery of all the documents that pertain to his unlawful detention.”
ECF No. 9 at 1.

1

On July 11, 2018, Petitioner filed a second motion for discovery, in which he requests
discovery pursuant to Article 240 of New York Criminal Procedure Law, as well as the production
of “all the legal documentaries pertaining to his remedy of his unlawful detention.” ECF No. 10
at 1.
Finally, on July 25, 2018, Petitioner filed a Motion for the Court to Order the Return of
Legal Data. ECF No. 12. In this motion, Petitioner alleges that officers at the Buffalo Federal
Detention Facility confiscated his flash drive, which contained legal materials and research,
deeming it to be contraband. See id. at 1. Petitioner claims that the officers acted on behalf of
Respondent Jeffery Searls, Acting Assistant Field Office Director of the ICE Buffalo Field Office,
who allegedly has a personal vendetta against Petitioner. Id. at 2. Petitioner also asserts that, at
Searls’ behest, Petitioner was wrongly moved to stricter confinement within the facility. Petitioner
requests that the Court (1) order the return of his flash drive and legal materials, (2) protect
Petitioner from Respondent Searls, and (3) order the transfer of Petitioner to a different detention
facility.
DISCUSSION
Because Petitioner has obtained counsel, his Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No.
8) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Petitioner’s two motions for discovery (ECF Nos. 9, 10) are DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. “In immigration habeas proceedings under § 2241, a petitioner is not entitled to
discovery as a matter of course.” Toolasprashad v. Tryon, No. 12CV734, 2013 WL 1560176, at
*2 (W.D.N.Y. Apr. 11, 2013) (citing Yosef v. Killian, 646 F. Supp. 2d 499, 504 n.4 (S.D.N.Y.
2009)); see also Razzoli v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 12 Civ. 3774, 2013 WL 3580633, at *1
(S.D.N.Y. July 10, 2013). Instead, the petitioner must establish good cause for the discovery.

2

Tryon, 2013 WL 1560176, at *2-3. Good cause exists where “specific allegations before the court
show reason to believe that the petitioner may, if the facts are fully developed, be able to
demonstrate that he is . . . entitled to relief.” Yosef, 646 F. Supp. 2d at 504 n.4 (quoting Bracy v.
Gramley, 520 U.S. 899, 904 (1997)). “In the absence of such a showing, the Court may exercise
its discretion to deny a discovery request.” Id. In this case, Petitioner has neither identified specific
discoverable materials nor articulated good cause for their discovery. His blanket request does not
justify relief at this juncture. Nevertheless, the Court denies Petitioner’s motions without prejudice
to seeking discovery at a later date, should the need arise during the course of this litigation.
Regarding Petitioner’s motion alleging the wrongful confiscation of his legal materials
(ECF No. 12), Respondents shall file a written response to the motion within 30 days of the date
of this Order. Petitioner may file a written reply within 15 days after he receives Respondents’
response.
CONCLUSION
Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (ECF No. 8) is DENIED AS MOOT.
Petitioner’s two motions for discovery (ECF Nos. 9, 10) are DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Respondents shall file a written response to
Petitioner’s Motion for the Court to Order the Return of Legal Data (ECF No. 12). Petitioner may
file a written reply within 15 days after he receives Respondents’ response.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 02, 2018
Rochester, New York
______________________________________
HON. FRANK P. GERACI, JR.
Chief Judge
United States District Court
3