Opinion
24-cv-00564-VKD
02-01-2024
BYRON H.E., Plaintiff, v. MOISES BECERRA, et al., Defendants.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
VIRGINIA K. DEMARCHI UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Petitioner Byron H.E.1 is a 53-year old citizen of Guatemala, who immigrated to the United States around 1985 when he was a teenager. Dkt. No. 1. According to his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, he has been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, pending removal proceedings, at the Golden State Annex facility in McFarland, California, for over 24 months. Id. Mr. H.E. requests that the Court issue a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 224ordering his release from physical custody; or in the alternative, ordering respondents to hold a bond hearing. Id.
This Court partially redacts petitioner's name to mitigate privacy concerns, as suggested by the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States.
The Court may entertain a petition for writ of habeas corpus from a person claiming to be “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Mr. H.E. alleges that his detention has been unreasonably prolonged and violates his constitutional rights. Liberally construed, the petition states cognizable claims.
Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:
1. The Clerk shall electronically serve a copy of this order upon respondents and respondents' attorneys, the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California, at the following email addresses: (1) usacan.ecf@usdoj.gov; (2) michelle.lo@usdoj.gov; and (3) kathy.terry@usdoj.gov. The petition and the exhibits thereto are available via the Electronic Case Filing System for the Northern District of California.
2. By February 20, 2024, respondents shall file an answer responding to the allegations of Mr. H.E.'s petition and showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be issued. Respondents must file with the answer a copy of all documents that are relevant to a determination of the issues presented by the petition.
3. If Mr. H.E. wishes to respond to the answer, he must do so by filing a traverse by February 27, 2024.
4. The parties may propose changes to this schedule by submitting a stipulation and proposed order. If they have disagreements about scheduling, the parties may submit a joint statement briefly identifying the parties' respective positions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.