Ramirez Medina v. Asher

Filing 39

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE by Hon. James P. Donohue. Petitioner's motion for immediate release from the ongoing removal proceedings is DENIED. Expedited bond hearing before an Immigration Judge to be requested no later than 2/21/2017 at noo n. If requested, respondents shall arrange for Mr. Ramirez to have a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge by Friday, 2/24/2017. Amended habeas petition due by 2/21/2017 at noon. Government's motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds is d ue by Friday, 2/24/2017 at 5:00 p.m; Response due 3/3/2017 by 5:00 p.m.; Reply due 3/7/2017 at noon. Oral argument on the Government's motion to dismiss to be held on 3/8/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 12A. The unopposed motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief by United We Dream, Dkt. 38 , is GRANTED. (PM)

Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM-JPD Document 39 Filed 02/17/17 Page 1 of 4

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8

DANIEL RAMIREZ MEDINA,

9
10
11
12

Petitioner,

ORDER SETTING BRIEFING
SCHEDULE

v.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,
Respondents.

13
14

NO. C17-218-RSM-JPD

This is an immigration habeas action under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. At the status conference

15

held on February 17, 2017, the Court set forth several deadlines for the parties. This Order

16

memorializes the Court’s oral ruling and adds additional details. Accordingly, the Court finds

17

and ORDERS:

18
19
20

(1)

The briefing schedule previously set in the Court’s February 14, 2017 Order

Setting Status Conference, Dkt. 30, is STRICKEN.
(2)

Mr. Ramirez’s motion for immediate release from the ongoing removal

21

proceedings is DENIED. The Court lacks jurisdiction to so rule in the first instance, but must

22

defer the initial inquiry to an Immigration Judge. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); Leonardo v.

23

Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011). If Mr. Ramirez would like an expedited bond

24

hearing before an Immigration Judge under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), he must request one as soon as
ORDER - 1

Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM-JPD Document 39 Filed 02/17/17 Page 2 of 4

1

possible and no later than Tuesday, February 21, 2017 at noon. See 8 C.F.R. § 236.1(d)(1).

2

If requested, respondents shall arrange for Mr. Ramirez to have a bond hearing before an

3

Immigration Judge by Friday, February 24, 2017.

4

(3)

Administrative exhaustion of bond determinations is prudential rather than

5

jurisdictional, and therefore it may be waived. See, e.g., Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1203

6

n.3 (9th Cir. 2011); Puga v. Chertoff, 488 F.3d 812, 815 (9th Cir. 2007). Following the

7

Immigration Judge’s bond determination, the aggrieved party may ask the Court to waive the

8

general requirement that a bond determination be appealed to the Board of Immigration

9

Appeals and consider appropriate objections to the bond determination.

10
11
12

(4)

Mr. Ramirez’s amended habeas petition is due by Tuesday, February 21, 2017

at noon.
(5)

By 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 21, 2017, the parties shall inform

13

Courtroom Deputy Agalelei Elkington, at [phone] whether they agree to consent to the

14

merits of this case being determined by the undersigned Magistrate Judge. If the parties do not

15

agree to consent, they should not inform the Court of their respective positions and this case

16

will be reassigned to the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez.

17
18
19
20
21
22

(6)

The Government’s motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds is due by

Friday, February 24, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. The brief shall not exceed 25 pages.
(7)

Mr. Ramirez’s response is due by Friday, March 3, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. The

brief shall not exceed 25 pages.
(8)

The Government’s reply brief is due by Tuesday, March 7, 2017 at noon. The

brief shall not exceed 12 pages.

23
24
ORDER - 2

Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM-JPD Document 39 Filed 02/17/17 Page 3 of 4

1

(9)

Oral argument on the Government’s motion to dismiss based on jurisdiction

2

will be held on Wednesday, March 8, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 12A at the U.S.

3

District Courthouse, 700 Stewart Street in Seattle, Washington.

4

(10)

a.

5
6

The parties’ briefs should address, at a minimum, the following questions:
Does 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) limit the Court’s jurisdiction over any of Mr.

Ramirez’s claims? Address the impact of § 1252(g) on each of Mr. Ramirez’s claims.
b.

7

Do 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5) and (b)(9) limit the Court’s jurisdiction over

8

any of Mr. Ramirez’s claims? Address the impact of §§ 1252(a)(5) and (b)(9) on each of Mr.

9

Ramirez’s claims.
c.

10

When considering jurisdictional challenges under §§ 1252(a)(5) and

11

(b)(9), a key question is whether the claims are independent of challenges to removal orders or

12

whether they are inextricably linked. See Martinez v. Napolitano, 704 F.3d 620, 622-23 (9th

13

Cir. 2012); Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1211 (9th Cir. 2011). This distinction “will turn

14

on the substance of the relief that a plaintiff is seeking.” Martinez, 704 F.3d at 623. Discuss

15

§§ 1252(a)(5) and (b)(9) with respect to each type of relief Mr. Ramirez is seeking.
d.

16

At what point, if any, in removal proceedings, including in a petition for

17

review in the Ninth Circuit, would Mr. Ramirez be able to raise the constitutional claims raised

18

in this lawsuit?

19
20
21
22

(11)

After considering the threshold jurisdictional motion to dismiss, the Court will

set a hearing schedule for the merits of the habeas petition.
(12)

The unopposed motion for leave to file amicus curiae brief by United We

Dream, Dkt. 38, is GRANTED.

23
24
ORDER - 3

Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM-JPD Document 39 Filed 02/17/17 Page 4 of 4

1
2
3

(13)

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this Order to counsel for both parties and

to Chief Judge Martinez.
DATED this 17th day of February, 2017.

A

4
5

JAMES P. DONOHUE
Chief United States Magistrate Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER - 4