From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Megwa v. Bureau of Immigration Customs Enforcement

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Apr 6, 2005
No. 3:05cv336 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 6, 2005)

Opinion

No. 3:05cv336.

April 6, 2005


ORDER


Presently before the Court for disposition is Magistrate Judge Malachy E. Mannion's report and recommendation (Doc. 5) which proposes we transfer the present motion to the Northern District of New York, as it relates to Petitioner's case pending in that district and is not an independent motion for habeas corpus. No objections to the report and recommendation have been filed, and the time for such filing has passed. Therefore, in order to decide whether to adopt the report and recommendation, we must determine whether a review of the record evidences plain error or manifest injustice. See, e.g., Sullivan v. Cuyler, 723 F.2d 1077, 1085 (3d Cir. 1983); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b) 1983 advisory committee notes ("When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record to accept the recommendation"); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

After careful review, we find that the Magistrate's order would cause the Petitioner to suffer a manifest injustice. Plaintiff's currently pending habeas petition in the Northern District of New York challenges his state court conviction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Since the institution of that habeas petition, Plaintiff alleges that Respondents have instituted removal proceedings, and he requests that we stay those proceedings, thus allowing him to challenge the removal proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, we must evaluate his pleadings with less scrutiny that we would if he filed with the assistance of counsel. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 520, 520-21 (1972) (announcing a more lenient standard for pro se motions). Without further information or knowledge of the grounds that Petitioner seeks to assert to challenge his removal proceedings, we are not currently in a position to categorically dismiss his petition and transfer it to another district where a potentially unrelated case is proceeding. Therefore, we will grant the stay, order Plaintiff to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus and brief in support thereof with Magistrate Mannion, and remand this matter to Magistrate Mannion for further considerations of this matter.

AND NOW, to wit, this 6th day of April 2005, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1) We DECLINE to adopt the magistrate's report and recommendation (Doc. 5);
2) Petitioner Christopher Megwa's Motion for a Stay of Removal Proceedings (Doc. 1) is GRANTED to the extent that Respondents are DIRECTED to stay all removal activities against him until further order of this Court;
3) Petitioner is ordered to file his petition for writ of habeas corpus within thirty (30) days of the date of this order or the stay shall be lifted and the case closed;
4) This case is REMANDED to Magistrate Mannion for further consideration of the matter; and
4) The Clerk of Court is directed to fax a copy of this order to: United States Attorney Civil Chief Dennis Pfannenschmidt and the Warden of the York County Prison.


Summaries of

Megwa v. Bureau of Immigration Customs Enforcement

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
Apr 6, 2005
No. 3:05cv336 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 6, 2005)
Case details for

Megwa v. Bureau of Immigration Customs Enforcement

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER O. MEGWA, Petitioner v. BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION CUSTOMS…

Court:United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Apr 6, 2005

Citations

No. 3:05cv336 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 6, 2005)