Ildefonso-Candelario v. Lowe et al
MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry).Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 4/28/17. (bs)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-2120
CRAIG A. LOWE, Warden, et al.,
On October 20, 2016, petitioner Roman Ildefonso-Candelario filed a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus with this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§2241. (Doc. 1). The petitioner is a citizen of Mexico who entered the United
States without inspection in 1996. On March 29, 2016, the petitioner was
detained by ICE under 8 U.S.C. §1226(c) and removal proceedings were
initiated against him. He was placed in custody at the York and Pike County
Prisons in Pennsylvania. The petitioner claims that he has suffered an
unreasonably prolonged detention during the pendency of his removal
proceedings and that he has not been afforded the due process protections
required by the United States Constitution. The petitioner requests that a
constitutionally adequate bond hearing be conducted by this court, or in the
alternative, by an Immigration Judge.
Presently pending before the court is the April 21, 2017 report and
recommendation of Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr, (Doc. 17),
recommending that an Immigration Judge be directed to conduct an
individualized bond hearing for the petitioner and, therein, granting in part the
petitioner’s habeas petition. Judge Saporito’s report indicates that all parties
agree that the petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing at this time. On April 25,
2017, the parties jointly filed a letter indicating that there were no objections
to Judge Saporito’s report. (Doc. 18).
Where no objection is made to a report and recommendation, the court
should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy itself that there is no clear error
on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” FED. R. CIV.
P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply
Int’l, Inc., 702 F. Supp. 2d 465, 469 (2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812
F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining judges should give some review to
every report and recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether timely objections
are made or not, the district court may accept, not accept, or modify, in whole
or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28
U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
The court has reviewed Judge Saporito’s report as well as the
applicable law and concurs with his recommendation. The clear guidance of
Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York County Prison, 783 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2015)
and Diop v. ICE/Homeland Security, 656 F.3d 222 (3d Cir. 2011) indicate that
the petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing to justify his continued detention
during removal proceedings. His continued detention will be justified only if it
is determined, on an individualized basis, that it is necessary to achieving the
goals of the immigration statute, particularly, “ensuring participation in the
removal process and protecting the community from the danger he . . .
poses.” Chavez-Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 475. It is the government’s burden to
show that the petitioner’s continued detention is necessary to fulfill the abovereferenced purposes of the detention statute. Diop, 659 F.3d at 233.
Accordingly, the court will ADOPT Judge Saporito’s report, (Doc. 17), in its
entirety, will GRANT IN PART the petitioner’s habeas petition, (Doc. 1), and
will direct an Immigration Judge to conduct an individualized bond hearing. An
appropriate order shall follow.
s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
Dated: April 28, 2017
O:\Mannion\shared\MEMORANDA - DJ\CIVIL MEMORANDA\2016 MEMORANDA\16-2120-01.wpd
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?