Odeyale v. Chadwick

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided January 22, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-00104·Unknown

Opinion

DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3

4 Bolanle Christina Odeyale, Case No. 2:25-cv-00104-CDS-EJY

5 Petitioner Service Order

6 v. [ECF No. 1] 7 Hollie Chadwick, et al.,

8 Respondents

10 Petitioner Bolanle Christina Odeyale, an immigration detainee, has filed a counseled 11 petition for federal habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, seeking review of a denial of bond 12 pending her removal proceedings because she was found to be a danger to the community based 13 on a single non-violent offense from five years earlier. ECF No. 1. I find that I have jurisdiction over 14 this matter1 and, following a preliminary review of the petition under the Rules Governing 15 Section 2254 Cases,2 I direct that the petition be served on the respondents. 16 It is therefore ordered that the Clerk of Court: 17 1. DELIVER a copy of the petition (ECF No. 1), the exhibits (ECF Nos. 1-1 through 18 1-19), and this order to the U.S. Marshal for service. 19 2. SEND VIA REGISTERED OR CERTIFIED MAIL a copy of the petition (ECF 20 No. 1) and this Order pursuant to Rule 4(i)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil 21 Procedure to: (1) Hollie Chadwick, P.O. Box 95050, Henderson, NV 89009-5050; 22 (2) Alejandro Nicholas Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, 2707 Martin 23 Luther King Jr. Ave SE, Washington, DC 20528; and (3) Merrick Brian Garland, 24 Attorney General of the United States, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 25 Washington, DC 20530-0001. 26

27 1 Federal district courts have habeas jurisdiction under § 2241 to review “bond hearing determinations for constitutional claims and legal error.” Singh v. Holder, 638 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir. 2011) (citing Demore v. Kim, 28 538 U.S. 510, 516–17 (2003)). 2 I exercise my discretion to apply the rules governing § 2254 petitions to this § 2241 action. (Habeas Rule 1 It is further ordered that the U.S. Marshal SERVE a copy of the petition (ECF No. 1), the 2 ||exhibits (ECF Nos. 1-1 through 1-19), and this Order on the United States Attorney for the District 3 || of Nevada or on an Assistant United States Attorney or clerical employee designated by the United 4 ||State Attorney pursuant to Rule 4(i)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5 It is further ordered that counsel for the respondents file a notice of appearance within 6 □□ seven days of the date of this order and file and serve their response to the petition within 30 days 7 ||of the date of this order, unless additional time is allowed for good cause shown. 8 It is further ordered that Odeyale has 30 days following the filing of the response to file a 9 reply, if desired. 10 It is further ordered that Local Rule 7-2(b) governs the scheduling for responses and 1] ||replies to motions filed by either party. / 2 Dated: January 22, 2025 Lf 13 f £ 4 —— CristineD. Silva 14 United States District Judge 15 (

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

XY

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

Odeyale v. Chadwick, (D. Nev. 2025).

Odeyale v. Chadwick (Odeyale v. Chadwick) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Demore v. Kim
538 U.S. 510 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Vijendra K. Singh v Holder
638 F.3d 1196 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)