Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Escobar v. Lynch

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

May 31, 2017

JOSE JACOBO ESCOBAR, Plaintiff,
v.
LORETTA E. LYNCH, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL; MICHAEL SAMANIEGO, DISTRICT DIRECTOR, DHS-ICE; WILLIAM LOTHROP, WARDEN, HONOLULU FEDERAL DETENTION CENTER, Defendants.

          ORDER DENYING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS TO THE MAGISTRATE'S FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 FILED ON FEBRUARY 8, 2017

          Leslie E. Kobayashi United States District Judge.

         On February 8, 2017, the magistrate judge filed his Findings and Recommendation to Deny Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“F&R”). [Dkt. no. 14.] On February 13, 2017, Petitioner Jose Jacobo Escobar (“Petitioner”) filed his Objections to the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation to Deny Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 Filed on February 8, 2017 (“Petitioner's Objections”). [Dkt. no. 15.] Respondents Loretta E. Lynch, United States Attorney General, Michael Samaniego, District Director, United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) - Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), and William Lothrop, Warden, Honolulu Federal Detention Center (collectively “the Government”) did not file a memorandum in opposition. The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(d) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Hawai`i (“Local Rules”). However, at the request of Petitioner, the court held a status conference on this matter on March 17, 2017. [Dkt. no. 20.] In an Entering Order filed on March 29, 2017 (“3/29/17 EO”), the Court denied Petitioner's Objections and adopted the F&R. [Dkt. no. 21.] The instant Order supersedes the 3/29/17 EO. After careful consideration of the objections, supporting memorandum, and the relevant legal authority, Petitioner's Objections are HEREBY DENIED and the F&R is HEREBY ADOPTED for the reasons set forth below.

         BACKGROUND

         A detailed background of this matter is available in the F&R, and the Court will only repeat those facts relevant here. On December 30, 2016, Petitioner filed his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”).[1][Dkt. no. 1.] The Government filed a memorandum in opposition on January 27, 2017, and Petitioner filed a reply on January 31, 2017. [Dkt. nos. 11, 12.] Petitioner challenges his continued detention without a bond hearing, and also states that the Immigration Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals misapplied the law. [Petitioner's Objections at 2-3.]

         STANDARD

         This Court reviews a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations under the following standard:

When a party objects to a magistrate judge's findings or recommendations, the district court must review de novo those portions to which the objections are made and “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673 (1980); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”).
Under a de novo standard, this Court reviews “the matter anew, the same as if it had not been heard before, and as if no decision previously had been rendered.” Freeman v. DirecTV, Inc., 457 F.3d 1001, 1004 (9th Cir. 2006); United States v. Silverman, 861 F.2d 571, 576 (9th Cir. 1988). The district court need not hold a de novo hearing; however, it is the court's obligation to arrive at its own independent conclusion about those portions of the magistrate judge's findings or recommendation to which a party objects. United States v. Remsing, 874 F.2d 614, 616 (9th Cir. 1989).

PJY Enters., LLC v. Kaneshiro, Civil No. 12-00577 LEK-KSC, 2014 WL 3778554, at *2 (D. Hawai`i July 31, 2014) (alteration in PJY) (citation omitted).

         DISCUSSION

         Petitioner objects to the magistrate judge's findings that: (1) this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the Petition; (2) Petitioner is not entitled to a bond hearing until after he is detained for 180 days; (3) Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies; and (4) Petitioner's removal order is final. [Petitioner's Objections at 2.] The Court will consider each of these in turn.

         I. The Court's Jurisdiction

         Petitioner argues that “this Court has jurisdiction over [a petition for] a writ of habeas corpus whenever there is a constitutional challenge to prolonged incarceration or where the prolonged detention is based on a violation or misapplication of the law.” [Petitioner's Objections at 3 (citation omitted).] The magistrate judge concluded that this Court does not have jurisdiction to review DHS's decision to detain Petitioner after the expiration of his removal period. [F&R at 12.]

         The Petition is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which states in relevant part, “[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). Further, it is undisputed that Petitioner is being detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), which allows the Government to, inter alia, detain an alien beyond the removal period if it is determined that the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.