Hassoun v. Searls
| Decision Date | 08 March 2021 |
| Docket Number | 1:19-CV-00370 EAW |
| Parties | Adham Amin HASSOUN, Petitioner, v. Jeffrey SEARLS, in his official capacity as Acting Assistant Field Office Director and Administrator of the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of New York |
A. Nicole Hallett, Mandel Legal Aid Clinic University of Chicago Law School, Jonathan Matthew Manes, Roderick & Solange MacArthur Justice Center, Chicago, IL, Brett Max Kaufman, Celso Javier Perez, Charles Hogle, Pro Hac Vice, Christopher T. Dunn, Judy Rabinovitz, Victoria Marie Roeck, New York Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, Jonathan Hafetz, Newark, NJ, for Petitioner.
Daniel Barrie Moar, U.S. Attorney's Office, Buffalo, NY, John J.W. Inkeles, Steven A. Platt, U. S. Department of Justice - Civil Division, Anthony D. Bianco, Joseph F. Carilli, Jr., Timothy M. Belsan, U.S. Department of Justice, Matthew A. Connelly, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Immigration Litigation, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
DECISION AND ORDER
The instant habeas corpus petition has a long and complicated procedural history, involving multiple decisions by this Court and proceedings before both the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. At this time, two substantive issues remain before the Court: (1) resolution of petitioner Adham Amin Hassoun's ("Petitioner") pending motion for sanctions (Dkt. 164); and (2) resolution of respondent Jeffrey Searls’ ("Respondent") request that the Court vacate as moot its rulings and judgment as to the legality of Petitioner's detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226a.1 For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants in part and denies in part Petitioner's motion for sanctions and grants Respondent's request for vacatur.
The background of this action is set forth in detail in the Court's numerous prior Decisions (see Dkt. 55; Dkt. 75; Dkt. 138; Dkt. 150; Dkt. 225; Dkt. 256), familiarity with which is assumed for purposes of the instant Decision and Order. The Court has briefly summarized the key factual and procedural history below; additional details necessary to understanding the substantive issues before the Court are set forth in the relevant sections of its analysis.
At the time he commenced this action, Petitioner was a civil immigration detainee at the Buffalo Federal Detention Facility (the "BFDF"). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 8 U.S.C. § 1226a(b), Petitioner challenged the legality of his potentially indefinite detention, which Respondent contended was lawful under both 8 U.S.C. § 1226a(a) and 8 C.F.R. § 241.14(d). On December 13, 2019, the Court entered a Decision and Order (Dkt. 55) finding that Petitioner's continued detention was not lawfully authorized by 8 C.F.R. § 241.14(d) and that an evidentiary hearing was necessary before the Court could determine the lawfulness of Petitioner's continued detention pursuant to § 1226a. The Court permitted the parties to engage in discovery in anticipation of the evidentiary hearing. (Dkt. 57; Dkt. 58; Dkt. 70).
On May 15, 2020, Petitioner filed a motion to compel and for sanctions. (Dkt. 164). The Court entered a Decision and Order on June 18, 2020, granting Petitioner's motion to compel and reserving decision on the request for sanctions. (Dkt. 225). In that same Decision and Order, the Court ruled on various evidentiary issues the parties had raised in advance of the evidentiary hearing. (Id. ).
Later in the day on June 18, 2020, Respondent filed a motion to cancel the evidentiary hearing and proceed to final judgment. (Dkt. 226). Without objection from Petitioner, the Court granted Respondent's motion on June 22, 2020. (Dkt. 236). On June 29, 2020, the Court issued a Decision and Order granting the Petition and ordering Petitioner's release effective July 2, 2020, at 12:00 p.m., subject to conditions of supervision. (Dkt. 256). The Court further denied Respondent's motion to stay Petitioner's release pending appeal. (Id. ).
Following entry of the Court's Decision and Order on June 29, 2020, Respondent filed two notices of appeal—one appealing the Court's rulings as to Petitioner's detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226a(a) to the D.C. Circuit and one appealing the Court's rulings as to Petitioner's detention under 8 C.F.R. § 241.14(d) to the Second Circuit. (Dkt. 259; Dkt. 260). Upon the consent of Petitioner and Respondent, both the D.C. Circuit and the Second Circuit issued immediate administrative stays to allow for consideration of a motion for a stay pending appeal by Respondent. (Dkt. 267; Dkt. 268).
On July 13, 2020, Respondent filed before the Second Circuit a consent motion to extend the administrative stay through July 27, 2020. Motion to Extend Time, Hassoun v. Searls , No. 20-2056, Dkt. 43 (2d Cir. Jul. 13, 2020). In his consent motion, Respondent advised the Second Circuit that "[a]bsent an extraordinary or unforeseen circumstance, the government intends to remove Petitioner-Appellee from the United States by July 27, 2020." Id.
Despite having been informed that Petitioner's removal from the United States was imminent and having before it a consent request by Respondent to extend the administrative stay, the Second Circuit entered an Order on July 16, 2020, granting Respondent's motion for a stay pending appeal, and indicating that an opinion would be forthcoming. Hassoun v. Searls , No. 20-2056, Dkt. 60 (2d Cir. Jul. 16, 2020). The D.C. Circuit, on the other hand, took the more standard approach of granting the consent motion for an extension of the administrative stay after being advised that Petitioner's removal was forthcoming. Hassoun v. Searls , No. 20-5191, Document No. 1851462 (D.C. Cir. Jul. 13, 2020).
Petitioner was removed from the United States on July 21, 2020, thereby mooting his challenges to his ongoing detention. (Dkt. 275). Notwithstanding the fact that the issues before it had been mooted, the Second Circuit issued a published Opinion on July 30, 2020, setting forth the rationale for its Order granting Respondent's motion for a stay. Hassoun v. Searls , 968 F.3d 190 (2d Cir. 2020).
Following Petitioner's removal, Respondent moved in both the Second and D.C. Circuit's for dismissal of the appeals as moot, as well as for vacatur of this Court's holdings and judgment as moot. Motion to Dismiss and to Vacate Judgment, Hassoun v. Searls , No. 20-2056, Dkt. 82 (2d Cir. Aug. 5, 2020); Motion to Dismiss Case as Moot and to Vacate, Hassoun v. Searls , No. 20-5191, Document No. 1855258 (D.C. Cir. Aug. 5, 2020). The Second Circuit granted Respondent's motion in a second published Opinion issued on September 22, 2020. Hassoun v. Searls , 976 F.3d 121 (2d Cir. 2020). In accordance with the Second Circuit's instructions, this Court entered a Text Order on December 16, 2020, dismissing the Petition as moot to the extent that it challenged the legality of Petitioner's detention pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 241.14(d). (Dkt. 296). The Court further ordered the Clerk of Court to issue an Amended Judgment reflecting the same (id. ), which the Clerk of Court did on December 17, 2020 (Dkt. 298).
The D.C. Circuit again took a different approach from the Second Circuit. On October 13, 2020, the D.C. Circuit issued an unpublished Order dismissing the appeal as moot and, on its own motion, remanding the matter to this Court with instructions to consider Respondent's request for vacatur as a motion for relief from an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Hassoun v. Searls , No. 20-5191, Document No. 1865943 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 13, 2020).
With leave of the Court (Dkt. 297), Respondent filed a supplemental brief in support of his request for vacatur on January 4, 2021 (Dkt. 299). Petitioner filed a supplemental opposition brief on January 20, 2021. (Dkt. 301)2 .
As set forth above, on May 15, 2020, Petitioner filed a motion to compel and for sanctions. (Dkt. 164). As the Court explained in its Decision and Order dated June 18, 2020, Petitioner's motion to compel arose from "Respondent's failure to produce in discovery information calling into question [government witness Shane Ramsundar's ["Ramsundar"]] credibility." (Dkt. 225 at 22). In particular, Respondent had failed to turn over documents from Ramsundar's immigration alien file ("A-file") that were responsive to Petitioner's request for "[a]ll documents and other evidence that would tend to undermine the credibility of all witnesses/informants against Petitioner." (Id. (citation omitted)). Petitioner identified six categories of documents that he was asking the Court to order Respondent to turn over. (Id. at 22-23). At oral argument on the motion to compel, Respondent's counsel "represented on the record that they have produced all documents responsive to the six categories of documents" at issue. (Id. at 23). The Court found that "any documents falling within the categories [Petitioner had] enumerated in his motion to compel are responsive and should be produced" and accordingly granted Petitioner's motion to compel. (Id. at 24).
Petitioner also sought sanctions against Respondent, on multiple bases. First Petitioner sought sanctions based on Respondent's failure to produce evidence reflecting negatively on Ramsundar's credibility. (Dkt. 190 at 4-7). Second, Petitioner sought sanctions on the basis that the government had deleted video evidence undercutting a specific claim by Ramsundar that Petitioner had threatened him in the visitation area at the BFDF. (Id. at 7-8). In its Decision and Order of June 18, 2020, the Court reserved decision on Petitioner's request for sanctions, but noted that it had "serious concerns" about the government's conduct in this matter, and that "Respondent's counsel's handling of Ramsundar's claim that Petitioner threatened his life" was "at the very...
To continue reading
Request your trial