Giko v. Sabol et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM (Order to follow as separate docket entry). Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 10/16/17. (lg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
HENRIQUE HANSON GIKO,

:
:
Petitioner,
:
:
v.
: No.: 4:16-CV-1783
:
MARY SABOL, ET AL.,
: (Judge Brann)
:
Respondents.
:
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
HENRIQUE HANSON GIKO,
Petitioner,
v.
CRAIG LOWE,
Respondent.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

No.: 4:17-CV-1422
(Judge Brann)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
OCTOBER 16, 2017
I.

BACKGROUND
Henrique Hanson Giko filed the initially captioned pro se petition for writ of

habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 while detained by the Department of
Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the York
County Prison, York, Pennsylvania. Named as Respondents are Warden Mary

-1-

Sabol of the York County Prison, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and ICE’s
Field Office Director Thomas Decker.
Petitioner, a native of Liberia, entered the United States on or about
November 9, 2004 as a refugee. While in the United States, he was convicted of
multiple crimes. His petition alleges that because he had been detained by ICE for
over 180 days and there was no likelihood that he would be deported in the
foreseeable future, his continued indefinite detention by the ICE pending
completion of his removal proceedings is unconstitutional.
Following service of the petition, the Petitioner was apparently transferred to
a detention facility in the State of Louisiana and then failed to notify the Court of
his change in address.
Giko later filed a second § 2241 petition with this Court.1 It asserts that
Petitioner is now detained by ICE at the Pike County Prison, Lords Valley,
Pennsylvania and names Warden Lowe of that facility as Respondent.2 The second
petition is accompanied by an in forma pauperis application which will be granted.
Service of the second petition has not been ordered.

1

Giko’s second petition erroneously indicates that his initial habeas corpus petition was
dismissed by this Court.
2

Since the only properly named Respondent in a federal habeas corpus action is Petitioner’s
custodial official, Warden Lowe will be deemed the sole Respondent in this matter. See 28
U.S.C. § 2242.
-2-

Petitioner’s second action similarly contends that his ongoing detention by
ICE constitutes a due process violation under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678
(2001), and related decisions. For the reasons outlined below, this Court will
direct that the consolidated petitions be served on the Respondent.
II.

DISCUSSION
Federal district courts only have jurisdiction in ICE cases where a detainee is

seeking immediate release on bond pending removal on the grounds that his
continued detention is unconstitutional. See Clarke v. Department of Homeland
Security, Civ. No. 4:09-cv-1382, 2009 WL 2475440 * 1 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 12,
2009)(Jones, J.).
Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states:
When actions involving a common question
of law or fact are pending before the
court, it may order a joint hearing or
trial of any or all the matters in issue
in the actions; it may order all the
actions consolidated; and it may make
such orders concerning proceedings therein
as may tend to avoid unnecessary costs or
delay.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
The allegations and facts set forth in each of the above described pro se
habeas corpus petitions are similar. As noted above, the arguments set forth in the
respective petitions identically challenge the legality of Giko’s ongoing detention
-3-

by ICE. Both actions claim that the Petitioner’s continued detention violates due
process under the standards announced by the United States Supreme Court in
Zadvydas and related decisions and as such fall within the limited jurisdiction
afforded to the district courts in ICE cases.
Consequently, since the actions contain common factors of law and fact, I
will order the consolidation of the two petitions pursuant to Rule 42(a) and
proceed with the consolidated matter under Petitioner's initially filed action, Civil
Action No. 4:16-CV-1783. In addition, the Respondent will be directed to file a
supplemental response addressing the Petitioner’s current status.
An appropriate Order follows.

BY THE COURT

s/ Matthew W. Brann
Matthew W. Brann
United States District Judge

-4-