Ramirez Medina v. Asher

Filing 55

MINUTE ORDER by Hon. James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge, regarding Petitioner's response to Government's 52 MOTION to Dismiss. (TF)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 8 9 DANIEL RAMIREZ MEDINA, Petitioner, 10 13 MINUTE ORDER v. 11 12 Case No. C17-218-RSM-JPD U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Respondents. 14 15 16 17 The following minute order is made at the direction of the Court, the Honorable James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge: 18 19 Petitioner’s response to the Government’s motion to dismiss, which is due Friday, March 3, 2017, at 5:00 p.m., shall include a discussion of the following: 20 (1) In the amended habeas petition and complaint for declaratory and injunctive 21 relief, petitioner alleges violations of the Fifth Amendment’s procedural and substantive due 22 process clauses, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unlawful seizure, and the Fifth 23 Amendment’s equal protection clause. Dkt. 41 at 22-41. As relief, he primarily seeks 24 immediate release, declaratory judgment, and an injunction prohibiting the Government from 25 re-arresting or detaining him on the basis of the conduct described in the petition. Dkt. 41 at 26 27. MINUTE ORDER - 1 1 However, the amended petition does not assert which form(s) of relief are appropriate 2 for which alleged constitutional violations. In responding to the Government’s motion to 3 dismiss, petitioner should cite any habeas cases that grant the particular relief requested for the 4 constitutional violations petitioner alleges. For example, petitioner should cite any habeas 5 cases that grant release based on a Fourth Amendment violation related to arrest. 6 (2) What authorities support the proposition that a habeas case seeking release as 7 one form of relief can proceed on a parallel track with removal proceedings, as opposed to 8 being deemed inextricably intertwined with the removal proceedings? 9 (3) The Government’s motion to dismiss relies heavily on J.E.F.M. v. Lynch, 837 10 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2016), in arguing that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5) and 1252(b)(9) preclude this 11 Court’s jurisdiction over petitioner’s claims. Petitioner’s brief regarding jurisdiction, Dkt. 46, 12 discussed J.E.F.M. only briefly and primarily in a footnote. Petitioner’s response should 13 provide a more thorough discussion of J.E.F.M. 14 15 16 (4) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this minute order to counsel for the parties and to the Honorable Ricardo S. Martinez. DATED this 28th day of February, 2017. 17 William M. McCool Clerk of the Court 18 19 s/ Tim Farrell Deputy Clerk 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MINUTE ORDER - 2

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?