Zheng v. Doll et al

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that to the extent that it seeks an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED; 8 The Report and Recommendation submitte d by United States Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., is ADOPTED to the extent consistent with this Order; and The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. (SEE Order for complete/further details.) Signed by Honorable Matthew W. Brann on 2/28/2018. (jr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GUIPING ZHENG,

No. 4:17-CV-02087

Petitioner.

(Judge Brann)

v.
CLAIR DOLL, et al.,
Respondents.
ORDER
FEBRUARY 28, 2018
Before the Court for disposition is a Report and Recommendation prepared
by Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr. on February 12, 2018.1 In this Report,
Magistrate Judge Saporito recommended that (1) this matter be referred to an
Immigration Judge to afford Petitioner Guiping Zheng an individualized bail
hearing within thirty (30) days; (2) at this hearing, the Immigration Judge shall
make an individualized inquiry into whether detention is still necessary to fulfill
the purposes of ensuring that Petitioner attends removal proceedings and does not
pose a danger to the community; and (3) the parties should report to the District
Court on the outcome of the individualized bail assessment no later than seven (7)

1

ECF No. 8.

-1 -

days after the Immigration Judge’s hearing.2 No objections to this Report have
since been filed.
Upon designation, a magistrate judge may “conduct hearings, including
evidentiary hearings, and . . . submit to a judge of the court proposed findings of
fact and recommendations.”3 Once filed, this Report and Recommendation is
disseminated to the parties in the case who then have the opportunity to file written
objections.4 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.”5 Nevertheless,
whether timely objections are made or not, the district court may accept, reject or
modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the
magistrate judge.6
Following independent review of the record, I am satisfied that the Report
and Recommendation contains no legal error, and to the extent that it seeks an
individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge, the Petition for Writ of

2

Id.

3

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).

4

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

5

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental Co. v. Dentsply
Intern., Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469 (M.D.Pa. 2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d
874, 878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining judges should give some review to every report and
recommendation)).

6

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.

-2 -

Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, should be granted, and this
case closed.
AND NOW, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. To the extent that it seeks an individualized bond hearing before an
immigration judge, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. 1, is GRANTED;
2. By granting the Petition, this Court confirms the need for an
individualized bond hearing but expresses no opinion as to the Petition’s
underlying substantive arguments regarding the propriety of detention.
That determination is reserved to the sole discretion of the immigration
judge. See Quinteros v. Sabol, No. 4:15-CV-02098, 2016 WL 6525295
(M.D. Pa. Nov. 3, 2016) (Brann, J.); Ahad v. Lowe, No. 1:16-CV-01864,
2017 WL 66829, at *2 n.1 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 6, 2017) (Kane, J.).
3. An individualized bond hearing shall be conducted by an immigration
judge within thirty (30) days of the issuance of this Order;
4. At this hearing, the immigration judge shall make an individualized
inquiry into whether detention remains necessary to fulfill the purposes
of ensuring that the Petitioner attends removal proceedings and whether
his release will pose a danger to the community, in accordance with

-3 -

Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York County Prison, 783 F.3d 469, 475 (3d
Cir. 2015);
5. At the hearing, the Government shall bear the burden of presenting
evidence and proving that continued detention is necessary to fulfill the
statutory purposes of detention, in accordance with Diop v.
ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221, 233 (3d Cir. 2011);
6. The Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 8, submitted by United
States Magistrate Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., is ADOPTED to the
extent consistent with this Order;
7. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.

BY THE COURT:

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

-4 -