Filed: Mar. 26, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 26, 2018
Summary: AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE MARIA-ELENA JAMES , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner initially filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. See Pet., Dkt. No. 1. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Respondents U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Sessions; Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielson; Field Office Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for San Francisco David Jennings; and Sheriff-Coroner of Contra Co
Summary: AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE MARIA-ELENA JAMES , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner initially filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241. See Pet., Dkt. No. 1. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Respondents U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Sessions; Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielson; Field Office Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for San Francisco David Jennings; and Sheriff-Coroner of Contra Cos..
More
AMENDED ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
MARIA-ELENA JAMES, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner initially filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Pet., Dkt. No. 1. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause directing Respondents U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Sessions; Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielson; Field Office Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for San Francisco David Jennings; and Sheriff-Coroner of Contra Costa County David O. Livingston to show cause by April 2, 2018 why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue. OSC, Dkt. No. 6. Three weeks later, Petitioner filed an Amended Petition. Am. Pet., Dkt. No. 9. Petitioner stated he had been released from detention but was subject to certain conditions of release that might last indefinitely. Id. ¶¶ 8-9, 12-14; see generally Brown v. Baughman, 2017 WL 3142115, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2017) (for purposes of habeas relief, "custody" may exist when the petitioner is on parole or probation, or where the sentence imposes significant restraints on liberty (citing cases)).
In his Amended Petition, Petitioner challenges his conditions of release as a violation of his Fifth Amendment right to due process, and asks the Court either order him released from certain conditions of supervision, or order Respondents to show cause why he should not be released. Id. Respondent Livingston filed a Statement of Non-Opposition to the initial and amended petitions on the ground Petitioner was released from custody and Respondent takes no position regarding the merits of Petitioner's claim for habeas release. Statement, Dkt. No. 10. He states he will not appear at any future hearings unless otherwise ordered by the Court. Id.1 Respondents Sessions, Nielsen, and Jennings have not yet responded to the initial OSC or appeared in these proceedings, and it is not apparent from the docket whether Petitioner served them with a copy of the Amended Petition (see Am. Pet. at ECF p.19 (Cert. of Service only through ECF system)).
Having considered the pleadings and documents in this matter, and good cause having been shown by Petitioner, the Court ORDERS Respondents Sessions, Nielsen, and Jennings to Show Cause:
1. By April 2, 2018, Respondents shall respond by answering the allegations in the Amended Petition and showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue, or by filing a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds;
2. Petitioner's traverse, opposition, or statement of non-opposition shall be filed by May 2, 2018; and
3. Any reply by Respondents shall be due May 17, 2018.
The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order, the Amended Petition, and all attachments thereto, on Respondents and shall serve copies of these documents to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California. The Clerk shall also serve a copy of the "consent or declination to magistrate judge jurisdiction" upon Respondents and their attorneys.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
