Martinez-Paredes v. Lowe et al
Filing
9
ORDER (memorandum filed previously as separate docket entry). IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1. Petitioner Kevin Martinez-Paredes petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1), is GRANTED insofar as Petitioner shall be afford ed an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order...2. At the bond hearing, the immigration judge must make an individualized inquiry into whether detention is still necessary for purposes of ensuring that Petitioner attends removal proceedings and that his release will not pose a danger to the community...3. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case. Signed by Honorable Yvette Kane on 10/30/17. (rw)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KEVIN MARTINEZ-PAREDES,
Petitioner
v.
CRAIG A. LOWE, et al.,
Respondents
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
No. 1:17-CV-00353
(Judge Kane)
AND NOW, this 30th day of October 2017, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. Petitioner Kevin Martinez-Paredes’ petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1), is GRANTED insofar as Petitioner shall be afforded an
individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within thirty (30) days of
the date of this Order;
2. At the bond hearing, the immigration judge must make an individualized inquiry into
whether detention is still necessary for purposes of ensuring that Petitioner attends
removal proceedings and that his release will not pose a danger to the community.
Chavez–Alvarez v. Warden York Cnty. Prison, 783 F.3d 469, 475 (3d Cir. 2015).
Further, the government bears the burden of demonstrating that Petitioner’s continued
detention is necessary to fulfill the purposes of the detention statute. Diop v.
ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221, 233 (3d Cir. 2011); and
3. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case.
s/Yvette Kane
Yvette Kane, District Judge
United States District Court
Middle District of Pennsylvania
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?