Chajchic v. Rowley et al
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 5 of Magistrate Judge Carlson, GRANTING petition 1 insofar as it seeks an individualized bond hearing, directing that an immigration judge shall conduct individualized bond hearing w/in 21 days of the date of this order, set ting forth instructions re: immigration judge's inquiry @ hearing & govt's burden (see Paras 4 & 5 for specific details), directing parties to report outcome of said hearing to court w/in 7 days after date of same, directing Clrk of Ct to CLOSE case, & noting if immigration judge fails to convene indiv bond hearing w/in 21 days of date of this order ct will re-open case & conduct its own indiv bond hrg under standards governing bail in h/c proceedings. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner on 5/2/17. (ki)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN ROWLEY, et al.,
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-457
(Chief Judge Conner)
AND NOW, this 2nd day of May, 2017, upon consideration of the report (Doc.
5) of Magistrate Judge Martin C. Carlson, recommending the court grant the petition
(Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner German Chajchic (“Chajchic”)
and order an individualized bond hearing for Chajchic within twenty-one (21) days
in accordance with the Third Circuit’s decision in Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York
County Prison, 783 F.3d 469, 478 (3d Cir. 2015), and it appearing that no party has
objected to the report, see FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(2), and the court noting that failure of
a party to timely object to a magistrate judge’s conclusions “may result in forfeiture
of de novo review at the district court level,” Nara v. Frank, 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir.
2007) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987)), but that, as
a matter of good practice, a district court should “afford some level of review to
dispositive legal issues raised by the report,” Henderson, 812 F.2d t 878; see also
Taylor v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 83 F. Supp. 3d 625, 626 (M.D. Pa. 2015) (citing Univac
Dental Co. v. Dentsply Int’l, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (M.D. Pa. 2010)), in order
to “satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record,” FED. R. CIV. P.
72(b), advisory committee notes, and, following an independent review of the record,
the court being in agreement with Judge Carlson’s recommendation, and concluding
that there is no clear error on the face of the record, it is hereby ORDERED that:
The report (Doc. 5) of Magistrate Judge Carlson is ADOPTED.
The petition (Doc. 1) for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED insofar as
it seeks an individualized bond hearing.
An immigration judge shall conduct an individualized bond hearing
within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order.
At the hearing ordered in paragraph 3, the immigration judge shall
make an individualized inquiry into whether detention remains
necessary to fulfill the purposes of ensuring that Chajchic attends
removal proceedings and that his release will not pose danger to the
community in accordance with Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York County
Prison, 783 F.3d 469, 474 (3d Cir. 2015).
At this hearing, the government shall bear the burden of presenting
evidence and proving that continued detention remains necessary to
fulfill the purposes of the detention statute. See Diop v. ICE/Homeland
Sec., 656 F.3d 221, 233 (3d Cir. 2011).
The parties shall report to the court the outcome of the individualized
bond hearing within seven (7) days after the immigration judge’s
The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
If the immigration judge fails to convene an individualized bond
hearing within twenty-one (21) days of the date of this order, the court
will reopen this case and conduct its own individualized bond hearing
under the standards governing bail in habeas corpus proceedings.
/S/ CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
Christopher C. Conner, Chief 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?