Molina v. Mayorkas
| Juan J. Molina |
| Alejandro Mayorkas |
| 1:2022cv02937 |
| May 13, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Rachel P Kovner |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 30, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE: Pro se petitioner Juan J. Molina filed this petition under 28 U.S.C. 2241, challenging both his ongoing confinement under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and his order of removal, see Pet. 1, 2, 5, 9 (Dkt. #1). He also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Mot. for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. #2). On June 5, 2022, the Court issued an order directing petitioner to show cause why the challenge to the order of removal should not be dismissed and the petition transferred to the Southern District of New York. See June 5, 2022 Order to Show Cause. In light of the petition and petitioner's response, the challenge to the removal order is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and his challenge to his ongoing confinement is transferred to the Southern District of New York. Petitioner's challenge to his order of removal is dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction. Under 8 U.S.C. 1252(e)(2), an individual may only challenge an order of removal in a habeas proceeding if the removal was ordered pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1). See 8 U.S.C. 1252(e)(2). Section 1225(b)(1) governs removal of aliens at the border. Petitioner indicates that he is a lawful permanent resident ordered removed for his criminal convictions, Pet. 3, 13, and he does not argue that he was ordered removed under Section 1225(b)(1) in either his petition or his response to the Courts Order to Show Cause, see Pet.; Letter from Juan J. Molina (Dkt. #3) (Molina Letter). Accordingly, the claim is dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Benitez v. An Unknown Immigr. Officer Employed by DHS, No. 19-CV-03153 (GHW), 2019 WL 3450743, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2019) (citing 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(5)) (collecting cases).The remainder of the petition is transferred to the Southern District of New York. When a petitioner challenges his confinement in the immigration context, "jurisdiction lies only in the district of confinement." Singh v. Holder, No. 12-CV-4731 (JMF), 2012 WL 5878677, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2012) (collecting cases); Golding v. Sessions, No. 18-CV-3036 (RJS), 2018 WL 6444400, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2018); see Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 443 (2004) (Typically, "for core habeas petitions challenging present physical confinement, jurisdiction lies only in one district: the district of confinement."). Here, the district of confinement is the Southern District of New York, since petitioner's place of custody, the Fishkill Correctional Facility, is located in that district. Pet. 9. Whether the proper respondent for this petition is the Secretary of Homeland Security, some other federal official, or a New York State official, see Molina Letter, does not change this analysis, because either way, petitioner challenges his confinement, and he is currently confine[d] in the Southern District of New York. Singh, 2012 WL 5878677, at *2 (the district of confinement is the proper venue for a habeas challenge to ongoing confinement in the immigration context); United States v. Krivoi, No. 18-CR-100-2 (ENV), 2022 WL 467066, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 19, 2022) (same in the criminal context) (collecting cases). Accordingly, venue is proper in the Southern District, not the Eastern District. When venue is improper, a court may dismiss the action or transfer it. See Krivoi, 2022 WL 467066, at *1 (collecting cases); Williams v. United States, No. 3:21-CV-1028 (CSH), 2021 WL 3421568, at *4 (D. Conn. Aug. 5, 2021); Darboe v. Ahrendt, 442 F. Supp. 3d 592, 596 (S.D.N.Y. 2020). This decision, which is confided to the discretion of the court, is guided by the interest of justice and a preference to "timely dispos[e] of cases and controversies on their merits." Minnette v. Time Warner, 997 F.2d 1023, 1027 (2d Cir. 1993); Krivoi, 2022 WL 467066, at *1 (citing Minnette). Since petitioner is pro se and transfer "enables more expeditious consideration of a petitioner's claims," "[t]ransfer rather than dismissal best serves the interest of justice" in this case. Holmes v. Thomas, No. 14-CV-1248 (JGK), 2014 WL 3866070, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2014). Accordingly, petitioner's challenge to his ongoing detention is transferred to the Southern District of New York.For the foregoing reasons, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and close the case. The decision on petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis is reserved for the transferee Court, and Local Civil Rule 83.1 is waived. Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 6/30/2022. (Daus, Benjamin)
|
| Case transferred from New York Eastern has been opened in Southern District of New York as case 1:22-cv-05579, filed 06/30/2022. (Lee, Tiffeny) |
| Filing 3 Letter from Juan J. Molina to Judge Kovner dated June 19 2022 titled Privileged and Confidential. (Herrera, Isaiah) |
|
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: The Court is considering transferring petitioner's challenge to his detention and dismissing his challenge to his removal order. When a petitioner challenges his confinement in the immigration context, "jurisdiction lies only in the district of confinement." Singh v. Holder, No. 12-CV-4731 (JMF), 2012 WL 5878677, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 21, 2012); see Golding v. Sessions, No. 18-CV-3036 (RJS), 2018 WL 6444400, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 6, 2018). The petition indicates that petitioner challenges his continuing confinement under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001); see Pet. 2, 5, 9 (Dkt. #1), and that he is currently in custody in the Southern District of New York, id. at 9. Accordingly, venue appears to lie in the Southern District, not the Eastern District.Moreover, petitioner also challenges his order of removal, arguing that since he was not deported within the required timeframe, he cannot be deported now. See Pet. 2, 9. However, under 8 U.S.C. 1252(e)(2), an individual may only challenge an order of removal in a habeas proceeding if the removal was ordered pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1225(b)(1). See 8 U.S.C. 1252(e)(2). Section 1225(b)(1) governs removal of aliens at the border, not the removal of lawful permanent residents. If a petitioner was not ordered removed under Section 1225(b)(1), the district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and must dismiss the claim. See Benitez v. An Unknown Immigr. Officer Employed by DHS, No. 19-CV-03153 (GHW), 2019 WL 3450743, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2019) (citing 8 U.S.C. 1252(a)(5)) (collecting cases). Since petitioner is a lawful permanent resident ordered removed for his criminal convictions, Pet. 3, he does not appear to have been removed under Section 1225(b)(1). Pet. 13. Accordingly, the Court appears to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over this claim. Accordingly, petitioner is directed to file a letter with the Court by 6/24/2022 indicating whether he opposes transfer for the adjudication of his petition to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, or, in the alternative, explaining why venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York. The letter shall also explain whether petitioner was removed under Section 1225(b)(1), and, if so, identifying which of the three grounds listed under Section 1252(e)(2) gives rise to his challenge. In the alternative, the letter may identify an alternative jurisdictional basis for review of petitioner's order of removal. Otherwise, the petition shall be transferred, and the challenge to the order of removal shall be dismissed. Ordered by Judge Rachel P. Kovner on 6/5/2022. (Daus, Benjamin)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Juan J. Molina. (Davis, Kimberly) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus , filed by Juan J. Molina. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Davis, Kimberly) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the New York Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Molina v. Mayorkas | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Juan J. Molina | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Alejandro Mayorkas | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
