Ramirez Medina v. Asher
MINUTE ORDER by Hon. James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge, regarding Petitioner's response to Government's 52 MOTION to Dismiss. (TF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
DANIEL RAMIREZ MEDINA,
Case No. C17-218-RSM-JPD
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,
The following minute order is made at the direction of the Court, the Honorable
James P. Donohue, United States Magistrate Judge:
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:
In the amended habeas petition and complaint for declaratory and injunctive
relief, petitioner alleges violations of the Fifth Amendment’s procedural and substantive due
process clauses, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unlawful seizure, and the Fifth
Amendment’s equal protection clause. Dkt. 41 at 22-41. As relief, he primarily seeks
immediate release, declaratory judgment, and an injunction prohibiting the Government from
re-arresting or detaining him on the basis of the conduct described in the petition. Dkt. 41 at
MINUTE ORDER - 1
However, the amended petition does not assert which form(s) of relief are appropriate
for which alleged constitutional violations. In responding to the Government’s motion to
dismiss, petitioner should cite any habeas cases that grant the particular relief requested for the
constitutional violations petitioner alleges. For example, petitioner should cite any habeas
cases that grant release based on a Fourth Amendment violation related to arrest.
What authorities support the proposition that a habeas case seeking release as
one form of relief can proceed on a parallel track with removal proceedings, as opposed to
being deemed inextricably intertwined with the removal proceedings?
The Government’s motion to dismiss relies heavily on J.E.F.M. v. Lynch, 837
F.3d 1026 (9th Cir. 2016), in arguing that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(a)(5) and 1252(b)(9) preclude this
Court’s jurisdiction over petitioner’s claims. Petitioner’s brief regarding jurisdiction, Dkt. 46,
discussed J.E.F.M. only briefly and primarily in a footnote. Petitioner’s response should
provide a more thorough discussion of J.E.F.M.
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.
William M. McCool
Clerk of the Court
s/ Tim Farrell
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?