Young v. Aviles et al
| Albert Omar Young |
| Oscar Aviles, Christopher Shanahan, Jeh Johnson, Eric Holder and U.S. Department of Homeland Security |
| 1:2014cv09531 |
| December 2, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
31
OPINION AND ORDER re: 18 FIRST MOTION for maggy duteau to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Albert Omar Young: Regrettably, until the Supreme Court or the Second Circuit address the questions presented in this case, similarly situate d aliens in this Circuit will continue to be treated differently. That is, given the split among district courts in the Circuit, whether an alien in Young's position will be granted a bond hearing will continue to turn on the district judge t o whom a particular habeas petition is assigned. The Court sincerely hopes that the Second Circuit steps into the fray soon. But in the absence of binding precedent from the Supreme Court and the Circuit, this Court has no choice but to reach its own decision on the questions presented. For the reasons stated above, the Court sides with those courts that have held that an alien in Young's position is subject to mandatory detention under Section 1226(c) and that Young's detention without a bond hearing does not yet violate due process. Accordingly, his petition is DENIED without prejudice to refiling if or when his detention becomes unreasonably prolonged. There is one final matter to address: Last month, Young's coun sel of record, Maggy Duteau, moved to withdraw and sought a retaining lien on Petitioner's file. (Docket Nos. 14, 18). Through his new counsel, Paul Grotas, Young has indicated that he does not oppose Duteau's motion to withdraw. (Docket No. 29). Accordingly, and having found that Duteau has "satisfactory reasons for withdrawal or displacement," Local Civil R. 1.4 and in light of the procedural posture of the case Duteau's motion to withdraw is GRANTED. Young doe s, however, challenge Duteau's request for a retaining lien and, through Grotas, has submitted receipts purportedly indicating that he and his wife paid Duteau in full. (Docket No. 29 at 1; id., Ex. A). Without expressing any view as to the a uthenticity of those receipts or as to whether the receipts even establish that Duteau was paid in full, as they appear to all have been issued before commencement of this case the Court is of the view that further fact-finding may be necessary to determine if Duteau is entitled to a retaining lien and, if so, to fix the amount of the lien. Accordingly, by separate order to be issued today, the Court will refer this matter to Magistrate Judge Maas for the purposes of assessing Ms. Duteau 's request for a retaining lien. See Foster v. City of New York, No. 96-CV-9271 (PKL), 2000 WL 145927, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2000) (indicating that the Court would refer any motion for a retaining lien to a magistrate judge "for an evi dentiary hearing and determination of the appropriateness of the requested liens"); Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Kisosoh Realty Corp., No. 90-CV-7900 (PKL), 1992 WL 34146, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 18, 1992) (referring the case to magistrate judge for the purposes of conducting a hearing on the attorney's motion for a retaining lien in light of a factual dispute regarding the fees assessed). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 18, to enter judgment denying the petitio n, and to close the case. The Court, however, retains jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute regarding Duteau's request for a retaining lien. See Chesley v. Union Carbide Corp., 927 F.2d 60, 65 (2d Cir. 1991) (noting the "general rule that ancillary jurisdiction to resolve fee disputes continues after the initial litigation is no longer before the court"). (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/26/2015) (tn)
|
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 Southern 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
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.
