Ramirez Medina v. Asher

Filing 69

ORDER by Chief Judge Ricardo S. Martinez ADOPTING IN PART Judge Donohue's Report and Recommendations re 66 conditional release. Petitioner's Objections are DENIED. (SSM)

Download PDF
Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 69 Filed 03/24/17 Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 6 7 DANIEL RAMIREZ MEDINA, CASE NO. C17-218 RSM 8 9 10 11 Petitioner, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., ORDER ADOPTING IN PART JUDGE DONOHUE’S R&R AND DENYING PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL RELEASE Respondents. 12 13 THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Petitioner’s Objections to the portion of the 14 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the Honorable James P. Donohue, United States 15 Magistrate Judge, in which Judge Donohue has recommended the denial of Petitioner’s release 16 from immigration detention. Dkts. #64 at 34-44 and #66. Having reviewed such Objections, the 17 government’s response thereto, and the remaining record, the Court now ADOPTS that portion 18 of Judge Donohue’s R&R for the reasons set forth by Judge Donohue and for the additional 19 reasons discussed herein. 20 Just as Petitioner argued before Judge Donohue that his case is extraordinary and 21 involves special circumstances warranting relief, so too does he raise such arguments before this 22 Court in his Objections. Dkt. #66. He submits that Judge Donohue’s conclusion that he is not 23 entitled to conditional release is clearly erroneous. Dkt. #66 at 12. This Court disagrees. 24 ORDER - 1 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 69 Filed 03/24/17 Page 2 of 4 1 As an initial matter, the Court notes that Petitioner must take some responsibility for the 2 position he finds himself as of this date. Indeed, he has placed himself in the tenuous position of 3 arguing that his arrest and detention have violated his constitutional rights, while also asserting 4 that he is not challenging the revocation of his DACA status or “anything that has to do with the 5 removal proceedings themselves.” Dkt. #62 at 52:4-7. That position ultimately leads this Court 6 to agree with Judge Donohue that Petitioner is not entitled to release at this stage of the 7 proceedings. 8 Petitioner is now being held in immigration detention after U.S. Department of Homeland 9 Security issued a Notice to Appear (“NTA”) in removal proceedings and a Notice of Custody 10 Determination that he is to be held without bond. Dkt. #32, Exs. 1 and 4. By Petitioner’s own 11 admission, he is not challenging “anything that has to do with the removal proceedings 12 themselves.” Thus, the Court agrees with the government, that even if the Court were to find this 13 case presents extraordinary circumstance and/or that Petitioner is highly likely to succeed on the 14 merits, he is not entitled to release. See Dkt. #68 at 2-4. DHS has the statutory discretion to 15 detain aliens during the pendency of their removal proceedings. 16 Further, as this Court has previously recognized, the remedy for an unlawful arrest in violation of 17 the Fourth Amendment is suppression of evidence. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 18 1040-41 (1984); United States v. Garcia-Beltran, 443 F.3d 1126, 1131-32 (9th Cir. 2006); see 19 also Martinez-Medina v. Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting that 20 exclusionary rule applies in civil removal proceedings only when the Fourth Amendment 21 violation is egregious). Indeed, the government recognizes that “an unlawful arrest can have 22 important consequences.” Dkt. #68 at 4. Similarly, the United States Supreme Court has 23 explained: 24 ORDER - 2 See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 69 Filed 03/24/17 Page 3 of 4 Irregularities on the part of the Government official prior to, or in connection with, the arrest would not necessarily invalidate later proceedings in all respects conformable to law. “A writ of habeas corpus is not like an action to recover damages for an unlawful arrest or commitment, but its object is to ascertain whether the prisoner can lawfully be detained in custody; and if sufficient ground for his detention by the government is shown, he is not to be discharged for defects in the original arrest or commitment.” 1 2 3 4 5 United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S. 149, 158, 44 S. Ct. 54, 57 (1923) (citations 6 omitted). Likewise, the Supreme Court has noted that “[t]he ‘body’ or identity of a defendant or 7 respondent in a criminal or civil proceeding is never itself suppressible as a fruit of an unlawful 8 arrest, even if it is conceded that an unlawful arrest, search, or interrogation occurred.” INS v. 9 Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1039, 104 S. Ct. 3479, 3483-84 (1984). 10 This Court acknowledges the unusual circumstances of this case and that many questions 11 remain regarding the appropriateness of the government’s conduct. However, while the Court is 12 sympathetic to the situation in which the Plaintiff finds himself, it can only conclude that he is 13 not entitled to immediate release under the posture of this case. Accordingly, should petitioner 14 desire release from his current detention, his avenue for seeking such release should occur in the 15 context of his removal proceedings, which by his own admission, are not being challenged here. 16 For all of these reasons, the Court ADOPTS that portion of Judge Donohue’s R&R 17 pertaining to Petitioner’s motion for conditional release (Dkt. #45) and DENIES the motion. 18 Should Petitioner desire a bond redetermination hearing, the Court once again directs the 19 government to schedule such a hearing no later than one week from the date of Petitioner’s 20 request. 21 The Court shall review Judge Donohue’s R&R with respect to Defendants’ Motion to 22 Dismiss pursuant to the schedule previously set for any Objections on that portion of the R&R. 23 /// 24 ORDER - 3 Case 2:17-cv-00218-RSM Document 69 Filed 03/24/17 Page 4 of 4 1 2 The Clerk shall send a copy of this Order to the parties and to Judge Donohue. 3 4 DATED this 24rd day of March 2017. 5 A 6 RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ORDER - 4

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?