United States District Court, D. Hawaii
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
E. Kobayashi United States District Judge.
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.
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”).[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.]
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).
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.
The Court's Jurisdiction
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.]
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 ...