Gonzalez-Espinoza v. Cambria County Prison, et al

Filing 11

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ; adopting 8 Report and Recommendations.(1)The report and recommendation of Judge Mehalchick, (Doc. 8), is ADOPTED;(2)Petitioner Gonzalez-Espinozas habeas petition, (Doc. 1), is GRANTED IN PART to the exte nt that it seeks an individualized bond hearing;(3)An individualized bond hearing shall be conducted by an Immigration Judge within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order;(4)At the bond hearing, the government shall bear the burden of demonstrati ng that Gonzalez-Espinozas continued detention is still necessary to fulfill the purposes of ensuring that he attends removal proceedings and that his release will not pose a danger to the community under Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221, 231-33 (3d Cir. 2011);(5)The clerk of court is directed to close this case. Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 6/15/17. (bs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MIGUEL GONZALEZ-ESPINOZA,
Petitioner

:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-0661

v.

:

YORK COUNTY PRISON, et al.,

:

Respondents

(Mannion, D.J.)
(Mehalchick, M.J.)

:
ORDER

On April 12, 2017, petitioner Miguel Gonzalez-Espinoza, a native of
Mexico, filed, through counsel, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §2241. (Doc. 1). The petitioner is an alien who is charged as
being removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(B)(i). On October 16,
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 County Prison in Pennsylvania and he has been continuously
detained by ICE at this prison under §1226(c). The petitioner claims that he
has suffered an unreasonably prolonged detention of about 8 months during
the pendency of his removal proceedings and, that he has not been afforded
an individualized bond hearing in violation of 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 June 7, 2017 report and

recommendation of Judge Mehalchick, (Doc. 8), 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. In
their response to the habeas petition, (Doc. 4, p. 7), the respondents state
that “if this Court determines that [an individualized] bond hearing is
warranted, Respondents will coordinate with the immigration court to schedule
a bond hearing for Petitioner before an immigration judge as expeditiously as
possible in accordance with applicable law and regulation.” Based on the
current case law, Judge Mehalchick finds that the petitioner is entitled to an
individualized bond hearing before an Immigration Judge at this time. On June
13, 2017, the respondents and the petitioner filed notices indicating that they
had no objections to Judge Mehalchick’s report. (Doc. 9, Doc. 10).
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.
2

The court has reviewed Judge Mehalchick’s report as well as the
applicable law and concurs with her 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.
Thus, the court will ADOPT Judge Mehalchick’s report, (Doc. 8), and will
GRANT IN PART Gonzalez-Espinoza’s habeas petition, (Doc. 1), and order
that an Immigration Judge conduct an individualized bond hearing within 30
days.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, THAT:
(1)

The report and recommendation of Judge Mehalchick,
(Doc. 8), is ADOPTED;

(2)

Petitioner Gonzalez-Espinoza’s habeas petition, (Doc. 1), is
GRANTED IN PART to the extent that it seeks an individualized
bond hearing;

(3)

An individualized bond hearing shall be conducted by an
3

Immigration Judge within thirty (30) days of the date of this
Order;
(4)

At the bond hearing, the government shall bear the burden of
demonstrating that Gonzalez-Espinoza’s continued detention is
still necessary to fulfill the purposes of ensuring that he attends
removal proceedings and that his release will not pose a danger
to the community under Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d
221, 231-33 (3d Cir. 2011);

(5)

The clerk of court is directed to close this case.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge

Dated: June 15, 2017
O:\Mannion\shared\ORDERS - DJ\CIVIL ORDERS\2017 ORDERS\17-0661-02.wpd

4