Chun Man So v. Reno

217 F. Supp. 2d 383, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16676
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Chun Man So v. Reno. Read the opinion of the Court — 251 F. Supp. 2d 1112
District Court, E.D. New York·Decided September 4, 2002·No. 00 CV 6964(JBW)·Published

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

WEINSTEIN, Senior District Judge.

The court of appeals for the Second Circuit has remanded this case to permit the district court to clarify the basis for its ruling denying a petition for habeas corpus. See So v. Reno, No. 01-2344, 2nd Cir., August 16, 2002. The court of appeals suggests that “the district court may wish to consider, with briefing from the parties if necessary, whether the petition was filed in the proper venue and whether transfer to another venue would be appro *384 priate, and if inappropriate, whether the Attorney General is appropriately cited as custodian, and thus respondent, in alien habeas cases.” Id.

The parties will submit briefs on the relevant issues in accordance with the decision of the court of appeals.

SO ORDERED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Chun Man So v. Reno, 217 F. Supp. 2d 383, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16676 (E.D.N.Y. 2002).

217 F. Supp. 2d 383 (Chun Man So v. Reno) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.