Sassmannshausen v. Doll et al

Filing 6

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (1)The report and recommendation of Judge Carlson, (Doc. 5), is ADOPTED;(2)Petitioner Sassmannshausens 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 Immigration Judge within twenty one (21) days of the date of this Order;(4)At the bond hearing, the government shall bear the burden of demonstrating that Sassmannshausens 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. 5 .Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 9/28/17. (bs)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
KLAUS SASSMANNSHAUSEN,
Petitioner

:
:
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-1244

v.

:

CLAIR DOLL, et al.,
Respondents

:

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

:
ORDER

On July 17, 2017, petitioner Klaus Sassmannshausen, a native of
Germany, filed, through counsel, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. (Doc. 1). The petitioner, who was a lawful
permanent resident of the United States for 60 years, is charged as being
removable pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(B)(i) due to his convictions for
an offense relating to the illicit trafficking in a controlled substance and for
conspiracy to commit any law involving a controlled substance. On June 14,
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).
On May 5, 2017, an immigration judge ordered that the petitioner be
removed from the United States and denied his application for deferral of
removal under the Convention Against Torture. On May 31, 2017, the
petitioner filed an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals and his appeal

is currently pending. The petitioner has remained detained while his appeal
is pending without an individualized bond hearing.
In his instant petition, the petitioner claims that he has suffered an
unreasonably prolonged detention of about 14 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. (Doc. 1 at 19).
Presently pending before the court is the August 10, 2017 report and
recommendation of Judge Carlson, (Doc. 5), recommending that an
Immigration Judge be directed to conduct an individualized bond hearing for
the petitioner within 21 days and, therein, granting in part the petitioner’s
habeas petition. In their response to the habeas petition, (Doc. 4, p. 8), the
respondents state that “if this Court determines that [an individualized] bond
hearing is warranted under the facts and circumstances of this case,
respondent will coordinate with the immigration court to schedule a bond
hearing before an immigration judge as expeditiously as possible.”
Based on the current case law, Judge Carlson finds that the petitioner
is entitled to an individualized bond hearing before an Immigration Judge at
this time. No objections to Judge Carlson’s report have been filed and the
time within which to file them has lapsed.
2

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 Carlson’s report as well as the applicable
law and concurs with his recommendation. The clear guidance of ChavezAlvarez 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.
3

Thus, the court will ADOPT Judge Carlson’s report, (Doc.5), and will
GRANT IN PART Sassmannshausen’s habeas petition, (Doc. 1), and order
that an Immigration Judge conduct an individualized bond hearing within 21
days from the date of this order.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, THAT:
(1)

The report and recommendation of Judge Carlson, (Doc. 5),
is ADOPTED;

(2)

Petitioner Sassmannshausen’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
Immigration Judge within twenty one (21) days of the date of
this Order;

(4)

At the bond hearing, the government shall bear the burden of
demonstrating that Sassmannshausen’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: September 28, 2017
O:\Mannion\shared\ORDERS - DJ\CIVIL ORDERS\2017 ORDERS\17-1244-01.wpd

4