Martinez Jimenez v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: November 6, 2023
• Docket: 5:23-cv-03566
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 VICTOR MARTINEZ JIMENEZ, Case No. 23-cv-03566-SVK

8 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; GRANTING MOTION FOR 9 v. APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL; GRANTING LEAVE TO PROCEED IN 10 CURRENT OR ACTING FIELD OFFICE FORMA PAUPERIS; INSTRUCTIONS DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO FIELD TO CLERK; DIRECTING FEDERAL 11 OFFICE, UNITED STATES PUBLIC DEFENDER TO FILE IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 12 ENFORCEMENT, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 2, 3 13 Defendants.

INTRODUCTION 14 Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 15 § 2241 seeking relief from his continued detention by the United States Department of Homeland 16 Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) pending removal proceedings 17 without a bond hearing. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner has consented to the jurisdiction of a United 18 States Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 5.) He is granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and his 19 motion for appointment of counsel is granted. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) For the reasons stated below, 20 respondent is ordered to show cause why the petition should not be granted. 21 DISCUSSION 22 A. Background 23 The following facts come from the petition. Petitioner is a noncitizen who served 26 years 24 in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. (ECF No. 1 at 3 25 ¶ 15, 5 ¶ F.)1 He has been detained by DHS since October 11, 2022, pending his removal 26 27 1 proceedings. (ECF No. 3 at 1.) He was transferred to Golden State Annex in Macfarland, 2 California, an ICE facility. (ECF No. 1 at 1 ¶ 1.) 3 B. Standard of review 4 District courts have habeas jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review Immigration 5 Judges’ bond hearing determinations for constitutional claims and legal error. Singh v. Holder, 6 638 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 2011). Given “the substantial liberty interests at stake” in such 7 bond hearings, due process requires the government to “prove by clear and convincing evidence 8 that continued detention is justified,” and for IJ to make a contemporaneous record of the hearings. 9 Id. Failure to afford a bond hearing to an alien on prolonged detention may be grounds for habeas 10 relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Aguilar-Ramos v. Holder, 594 F.3d 701, 704 n.3 (9th Cir. 11 2009) (noting that at bond hearing government bears the burden of establishing that the alien is a 12 flight risk or a danger to the community). 13 The district court should "award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show 14 cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant 15 or person detained is not entitled thereto." 28 U.S.C. § 2243. 16 C. Petitioner’s claims 17 Petitioner claims his continued detention without a bond hearing violates his right due 18 process and under the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 1 at 13-14.) When his allegations are 19 liberally construed, it appears that petitioner has stated cognizable habeas claims for relief under 20 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 21 D. Motion for Appointment of Counsel 22 Petitioner filed a motion for appointment of counsel. The Sixth Amendment's right to 23 counsel does not apply in habeas corpus actions. Knaubert v. Goldsmith, 791 F.2d 722, 728 (9th 24 Cir. 1986). However, 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B) authorizes a district court to appoint counsel to 25 represent a habeas petitioner whenever "the court determines that the interests of justice so 26 require" and such person is financially unable to obtain representation. The decision to appoint 27 1 counsel is within the discretion of the district court. Chaney v. Lewis, 801 F.2d 1191, 1196 (9th 2 || Cir. 1986). In light of the length of petitioner’s detention to date and the complexity of the issues 3 || raised by the Petition, the interests of Justice necessitate petitioner’s representation by counsel. 4 || Accordingly, the motion for appointment of counsel will be granted. 5 CONCLUSION 6 1. The Clerk shall serve a Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form, a copy of this 7 Order, and the Petition, and all attachments thereto, on respondent and respondent’s attorney, the 8 United States Attorney. The Clerk shall also send a copy of the Petition and this Order to the 9 || Attorney General of the United States in Washington, D.C.. 10 2. Respondent shall complete and file the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction consent form no 11 later than December 6, 2023. 12 3. Respondent shall file with the Court and serve on petitioner, on or before December 6, 5 13 2023, an answer showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not be granted. If petitioner 14 || wishes to respond to the answer, he shall do so by filing a traverse (a reply) with the Court and 3 15 serving it on respondent on or before December 27, 2023. 16 4. The motion for appointment of counsel is GRANTED. Counsel is appointed pursuant 3 17 || to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A. United States v. Salemo, 81 F.3d 1453, 1459 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1996). The 18 Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the Federal Public Defender’s Office. Counsel for 19 Petitioner shall file a notice of appearance on or before December 6, 2023. 20 5. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED in light of petitioner’s lack of funds. 21 SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: November 6, 2023 23 24 Seem val Susan van Keulen United States Magistrate Judge 26 27 28