Maldonado v. Macias

• Decision Date: 15 December 2015
• Docket Number: EP-15-cv-221-KC
• Parties: Efrain Chavez Maldonado, Petitioner, v. Adrian P. Macias, et al., Respondents.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Texas

150 F.Supp.3d 788

Efrain Chavez Maldonado, Petitioner,

v.Adrian P. Macias, et al., Respondents.

EP-15-cv-221-KC

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division.

Signed December 15, 2015

Carlos Spector, Spector & Spector, El Paso, TX, for Petitioner.

Eduardo R. Castillo, Assistant United States Attorney, El Paso, TX, for Respondents.

ORDER

KATHLEEN CARDONE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On this day, the Court considered Petitioner Efrain Chavez-MaldonadO's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), ECF No. 1. For the reasons set forth herein, the Petition is hereby GRANTED in part.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner is a citizen and national of Mexico, residing in Chihuahua, Mexico, from about 2007 until his request for asylum on October 12, 2013. Pet. 2. On October 11, 2013, Petitioner witnessed the murder of his twin brother by the Chihuahua State Police, who then kidnapped and beat Petitioner. Pet. 1. On the following day, October 12, 2013, Petitioner arrived from Mexico at the Bridge of the Americas Port of Entry in El Paso, Texas, as an applicant for asylum. Resp. 1; Mem. 8. Upon arriving at the port of entry, Petitioner was deemed to be inadmissible because he was not in possession of a valid entry document, and he was placed in the custody of the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Resp. 1; Pet. 3. On October 30, 2013, Petitioner received a positive credible fear determination by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services upon his expression of fear of death if he were to return to Mexico. Pet. 4. Removal proceedings were initiated against him on November 1, 2013. Resp. 1.

Petitioner's first hearing before the Immigration Judge was held on November 19, 2013; he requested and was granted a continuance to seek an attorney. Resp. 1; Reply 10. At Petitioner's next hearing before the Immigration Judge, on November 27, 2013, Petitioner requested and was granted a continuance to file an application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Resp. 1. On December 17, 2013, Petitioner requested and was granted a continuance to prepare his case. Resp. 2. At a subsequent hearing on January 7, 2014, Petitioner requested and was granted a continuance to file his asylum application. Resp. 2. On February 6, 2014, the Government requested and was granted a continuance to respond to Petitioner's Motion for Administrative Closure. Resp. 2. On March 11, 2014, Petitioner filed his application for asylum, and the Immigration Judge scheduled a hearing on the merits of his application for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under CAT on May 21, 2014. Resp. 2. This merits hearing was moved to June 11, 2014, when Petitioner requested that his case be consolidated with the case of his nephew, who was also a witness to the murder of Petitioner's brother. Resp. 2; Pet. 2-3.

The Immigration Judge conducted Petitioner's merits hearing in three parts—on June 11, June 27, and July, 30, 2014—due to the busy court schedule. Mem. 9; Reply 9 n.6. On September 4, 2014, the Immigration Judge denied Petitioner's request for asylum and other relief. Pet. 4. On September 25, 2014, Petitioner appealed the Immigration Judge's decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). Pet. 4-5. The deadline for briefs was November 21, 2014. Resp. 2. Petitioner requested an extension of the briefing deadline, which was granted, extending the deadline to December 12, 2014. Resp. 2. On February 10, 2015, the BIA remanded the case to the immigration court, finding that “the Immigration Judge did not adequately consider” certain facts and did not “address whether [Petitioner's] persecutors (the Chihuahua state police) are ‘a government’ or ‘government-sponsored.’ ” Resp. 2; BIA Opinion, ECF No. 4-2 at 13.

On March 19 and April 15, 2015, the Immigration Judge held additional hearings, and the parties filed briefs on the issues remanded by the BIA. Resp. 3. On June 2, 2015, the Immigration Judge again denied Petitioner's request for asylum and other relief. Pet. 5. On July 2, 2015, Petitioner appealed this decision to the BIA. Pet. 5. The deadline for the briefs for this appeal was August 24, 2015. Resp. 3.

Since being placed in ICE custody on October 12, 2013, Petitioner has submitted written requests for parole seeking his release from custody pending removal proceedings on three separate occasions: November 15, 2013; June 16, 2015; and July, 22, 2015. Pet. 3-4. Each time, Petitioner's request for parole was denied. Pet. 4. During the time that Petitioner has been detained, he has not received a bond hearing. Mem. 15.

On July 28, 2015, Petitioner filed the instant Petition, naming Adrian P. Macias, ICE Field Director; Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney General; Jeh Johnson, Secretary of United States Department of Homeland Security; Sarah Saldana, Director of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; and Don Franklin, Warden of the West Texas Detention Facility, as Respondents. See Petition, ECF No. 1. On July 31, 2015, he filed a Memorandum in Support of his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Memorandum”), ECF No. 3. On July 29, 2015, the Court ordered Respondents to show cause why the petition should not be granted. See Order, ECF No. 2. On September 11, Respondents filed their Response to Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Response”), ECF No. 4, and, on September 25, 2015, Petitioner filed his Reply in Support of his Filed Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Reply”), ECF No. 5.

Petitioner has been held in immigration detention from October 12, 2013 until this day—more than twenty-six months. See Pet. 2.

II. DISCUSSION

In addressing the Petition, the Court first considers whether it has jurisdiction to decide Petitioner's claims. Next, the Court considers the Government's argument that Adrian P. Macias, ICE Field Director, is the only proper respondent. Finally, the Court considers Petitioner's claims regarding the legality of his continued detention.

A. Jurisdiction

In his Petition and Memorandum, Petitioner seeks habeas relief in the form of immediate release from ICE custody. Pet. 2, 18; Mem. 24. Petitioner claims that his continued detention violates the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Pet. 12. Petitioner also claims that his detention violates the Immigration and Nationality Act. Pet. 14. In its Response, the Government argues that Petitioner's detention is authorized by statute and that “[t]he constitutionality of detention during the pendency of removal proceedings has been upheld by the Supreme Court.” Resp. 4, 7.

“ ‘Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction,’ possessing ‘only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.’ ” Gunn v. Minton , ––– U.S. ––––, 133 S.Ct. 1059, 1064, 185 L.Ed.2d 72 (2013) (quoting Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994) ). Because federal courts are “ ‘duty-bound to examine the basis of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte,’ ” this Court must determine if it has jurisdiction to hear Petitioner's claims, even though the parties have not raised the issue. See Lane v. Halliburton , 529 F.3d 548, 565 (5th Cir.2008) (quoting Union Planters Bank Nat. Ass'n v. Salih , 369 F.3d 457, 460 (5th Cir.2004) ); see also Gonzalez v. Thaler , ––– U.S. ––––, 132 S. Ct. 641, 648, 181 L.Ed.2d 619 (2012) (“When a requirement goes to subject-matter jurisdiction, courts are obligated to consider sua sponte issues that the parties have disclaimed or have not presented.” (citing United States v. Cotton , 535 U.S. 625, 630, 122 S.Ct. 1781, 152 L.Ed.2d 860 (2002) )). “If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”); Avitts v. Amoco Prod. Co. , 53 F.3d 690, 693 (5th Cir.1995) (explaining that a case must be dismissed if jurisdiction is lacking, because jurisdiction “is mandatory for the maintenance of an action in federal court”).

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2241 grants this Court jurisdiction to hear habeas corpus petitions from aliens claiming they are held “in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) ; Zadvydas v. Davis , 533 U.S. 678, 687, 121 S.Ct. 2491, 150 L.Ed.2d 653 (2001) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) ). However, in 2005, Congress passed the Real ID Act, which divests district courts of jurisdiction to hear petitions under § 2241 that attack final orders of removal. Rosales v. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enf't , 426 F.3d 733, 735–36 (5th Cir.2005). Under the Real ID Act, district courts must transfer pending § 2241 cases to the appropriate court of appeals, where they are converted to petitions for review of the removal order.

An drade v. Gonzales , 459 F.3d 538, 542 (5th Cir.2006) (citing Rosales , 426 F.3d at 736 ).

The Real ID Act “does not, however, preclude habeas review of challenges to detention that are independent of challenges to removal orders.” Baez v. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enf't , 150 Fed.Appx. 311, 312 (5th Cir.2005) (citing H.R. Rep. No. 109-72, at 300 (2005)); see also Geromino v. Mukasey , 535 F.Supp.2d 808, 811–12 (W.D.Tex.2008) (“The REAL ID Act, however, does not preclude a district court from exercising jurisdiction over constitutional claims or questions of law which do not challenge a final order of removal.”). Thus, even after the passage of the REAL ID Act, district courts retain the power to hear statutory and constitutional challenges to civil immigration detention under § 2241 when those claims do not challenge a final order of removal, but instead challenge the detention itself. Baez , 150 Fed.Appx. at 312.

Even though this Court has...