welcome to elawyers.us
Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change
  1. Home
  2. Case Laws
  3. District Court, D. New Mexico
  4. 2019
  5. Aguilar v. McAleenan, 19-cv-0412 WJ/SMV. (2019)

Aguilar v. McAleenan, 19-cv-0412 WJ/SMV. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. New Mexico Number: infdco20190516b95 Visitors: 5
Filed: May 15, 2019
Latest Update: May 15, 2019
Summary: ORDER FOR SERVICE AND RESPONSE STEPHAN M. VIDMAR , Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. 2241 [Doc. 1], and on the Motion for Order to Show Cause [Doc. 2], both filed on May 3, 2019. The Court will order Petitioner to effect service on Respondents within 30 days. 2 Further, the Court will grant the Motion for Order to Show Cause [Doc. 2] and require Respondents to respond to the Petition within 20 days of the date
More

ORDER FOR SERVICE AND RESPONSE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Doc. 1], and on the Motion for Order to Show Cause [Doc. 2], both filed on May 3, 2019. The Court will order Petitioner to effect service on Respondents within 30 days.2 Further, the Court will grant the Motion for Order to Show Cause [Doc. 2] and require Respondents to respond to the Petition within 20 days of the date that they are served, showing cause why a Writ of Habeas Corpus should not issue. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (`).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Petitioner, no later than June 14, 2019, serve process on Respondents AND FURTHER file proof of service in conformity with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4, or show cause why not. If Petitioner does not timely comply, the Court may consider dismissal of this proceeding.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents, within 20 days after service, respond to the Petition or otherwise show cause why a Writ of Habeas Corpus should not issue.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that if Petitioner desires to file a reply (traverse), she may do so within 14 days of the filing of the response.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will set a hearing, if needed, at a later time. See § 2243.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Petitioner identifies as female and uses the first name Kelly and female pronouns. [Doc. 1] at 2 n.1. Accordingly, the Court will refer to Petitioner as "she" or "her."
2. The Court's obligation to serve most habeas petitions stems from the Rules Governing 2254 and 2255 Cases. For example, Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases provides that "[i]f the petition is not dismissed, . . . the clerk must serve a copy of the petition and any order on the respondent." If applicable, the in forma pauperis statute also provides a basis for court-supplied service. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) ("The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in [in forma pauperis] cases."). Here, however, Petitioner is not proceeding under §§ 2254, 2255, or 1915. Her Petition challenges her immigration detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. 1] at 4 (citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001)). Accordingly, it appears to the Court that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including the service provision of Rule 4, apply to this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(a)(4).
Source:  Leagle
Lawyers who claimed
No Lawyers
Citations
19-cv-0412 WJ/SMV.
Counsels
  • Katherine Elizabeth Goettel
  • Kristin G. Love
  • Leon F. Howard, III
  • Tania P. Linares Garcia
Similar Cases

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer