Guzman v. Lowe et al
ORDER TERMINATING CASE: SEE ORDER FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION; Signed by Honorable Malachy E Mannion on 2/7/18. (ep)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALEXANDER RAFAEL GUZMAN
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-01805
CRAIG LOWE, Warden,
Upon consideration of the above captioned petition for writ of habeas
corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, in which Petitioner challenges his
December 9, 2016 detention by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) as prolonged, and requests immediate release, or an individualized
bond hearing before an immigration judge, (Doc. 1), and it appearing that
Respondent does not oppose Petitioner’s request for a bond hearing1 (See
In Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York Cty. Prison, 783 F.3d 469, 477 (3d
Cir. 2015), United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that an
alien who had been detained pursuant to § 1226(c) for nearly three years was
entitled to a bond hearing “to determine whether, on evidence particular to
ChavezAlvarez, it is necessary to continue to detain him to achieve the goals
of the statute”. 783 F.3d at 471, 478. Although the Third Circuit declined to
provide a specific point at which detention without a bond hearing became
impermissible, the court explained that “beginning sometime after the
six-month time frame considered by Demore [v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 531
(2003)], and certainly by the time Chavez-Alvarez had been detained for one
year, the burdens to Chavez-Alvarez’s liberties outweighed any justification
for using presumptions to detain him without bond to further the goals of the
statute.” Id. at 478. Chavez-Alvarez recognized that it is proper for the bond
determination to “be made by the Immigration Judge, applying the
Doc. 5), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
The petition for writ of habeas corpus, (Doc. 1), is
GRANTED IN PART.
Petitioner, Alexander Rafael Guzman, shall be
provided an individualized bond hearing in front of an
Immigration Judge within thirty (30) days of this order.
At the abovementioned bond hearing, the government
bears the burden of demonstrating that detention is
still necessary, the petitioner is a flight risk, and that
his release will pose a danger to the community.
The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE the case.
s/ Malachy E. Mannion
MALACHY E. MANNION
United States District Judge
Dated: February 7, 2018
O:\Mannion\shared\ORDERS - DJ\CIVIL ORDERS\2017 ORDERS\17-1805-02.wpd
constitutional benchmarks outlined by the courts.” Singh v. Sabol, No. 141927, 2015 WL 3519075 at *6 (M.D. Pa. June 4, 2015) (citing ChavezAlvarez, 783 F.3d at 478 n.12). Given the immigration court’s familiarity with
Guzman and its experience with these types of hearings, holding the hearing
in that forum will facilitate the efficient resolution of Guzman’s claims. Indeed,
this Court and other federal courts have “frequently” taken this course. Singh,
2015 WL 3519075 at *6; see also Gourzong v. Lowe, No. 3:15-CV-1969, 2016
WL 109851, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 11, 2016); Deptula v. Lynch, No.
1:15-CV-2228, 2016 WL 98152, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 8, 2016); Banton v.
Sabol, No. 3:CV-12-1594, 2013 WL 1736804 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2013);
Bautista v. Sabol, 862 F. Supp. 2d 375, 382 (M.D. Pa. 2012).
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?