Fatty v. Duke et al
Filing
33
ORDER denying Respondents' 31 Motion for Clarification and/or Reconsideration; ordering Respondents to proceed with the bond hearing date as scheduled, signed by Judge James L. Robart for Judge Marsha J Pechman. (SWT)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE
8
9
10
BENGALLY FATTY,
Petitioner,
11
12
13
14
v.
CASE NO. C17-1535-MJP
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION AND/OR
RECONSIDERATION
KIRSTJEN M. NIELSEN, et al.,
Respondents.
15
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Respondents’ Motion for Clarification and/or
16
Reconsideration. (Dkt. No. 31.) The Court clarifies its May 6, 2018 Minute Order as follows:
17
The Court ordered that Petitioner be afforded a bond hearing pending resolution of his 28
18
U.S.C. § 2241 immigration habeas petition. (See Dkt. No. 30.) In so doing, the Court
19
conclusively resolved the merits of his petition as it relates to his request for a bond hearing. The
20
Court finds that Petitioner is eligible for a bond hearing for the following reasons:
21
First, Petitioner faces a final order of removal and is being detained under 8 U.S.C. §
22
1231(a)(6), which authorizes the detention of non-citizens who have been ordered removed
23
beyond the 90-day removal period. While Respondents contend that Diouf II should be regarded
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND/OR RECONSIDERATION - 1
1
as effectively overruled by the Supreme Court’s decision in Jennings v. Rodriguez, 138 S.Ct. 830
2
(2018), the Court disagrees, and joins those district courts that have found that Diouf II remains
3
controlling. See, e.g., Baños v. Asher, No. 16-1454JLR, 2018 WL 1617706 (W.D. Wash. Apr.
4
4, 2018); Ramos v. Sessions, 293 F. Supp. 3d 1021 (N.D. Cal. 2018); Mercado-Guillen v.
5
Nielsen, 2018 WL 1876916 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2018); Borjas-Calix v. Sessions, 2018 WL
6
1428154 (D. Ariz. Mar. 22, 2018). In Jennings, the Supreme Court explicitly contrasted §§ 1225
7
and 1226—the statutes at issue in that case—with § 1231(a)(6)—the statute at issue here and in
8
Diouf II, and noted that §§ 1225 and 1226 use the mandatory language “shall,” while §
9
1231(a)(6) uses the discretionary language “may.” See Jennings, 138 S.Ct. at 843. Because
10
Jennings “at a minimum . . . left for another day the question of bond hearing eligibility under [§]
11
1231(a),” it is not “clearly irreconcilable” with the Ninth Circuit’s holding in Diouf II, which
12
remains binding circuit authority. Ramos, 293 F. Supp. 3d at 1027; see also Lair v. Bullock, 697
13
F.3d 1200, 1207 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that prior circuit precedent is binding unless it is
14
“clearly irreconcilable” with intervening higher authority). Here, Petitioner falls directly within
15
the category of non-citizens held pursuant to § 1231(a)(6), and his eligibility for a bond hearing
16
is therefore governed by Diouf II.
17
Second, while Respondents contend that Petitioner’s removal is “imminent,” such that he
18
is not entitled to a bond hearing under Diouf II, whether Petitioner is to be removed at all is
19
presently in dispute. Further, more than six months have elapsed since Respondent first made
20
this argument, yet Petitioner remains in custody. (See Dkt. No. 14 at 4); see also Mercado-
21
Guillen, 2018 WL 1876916, at *3 (“Respondents’ contention that ‘Petitioner has not and cannot
22
show that he is not subject to removal in the reasonably foreseeable future’ is not sufficient to
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND/OR RECONSIDERATION - 2
1
demonstrate that [Petitioner’s] removal is imminent, given that more than two months have
2
elapsed since Respondents first made that argument . . .”).
3
Respondents have informed the Court that Petitioner’s bond hearing is scheduled for May
4
31, 2018. (Dkt. No. 32.) The Court hereby DENIES Respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration
5
and ORDERS Respondents to proceed with the bond hearing date as scheduled.
6
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.
7
8
Dated May 24, 2018.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION AND/OR RECONSIDERATION - 3
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?