17 F.4th 434
3rd Cir.2021Background
- Angel Argueta Anariba, a Honduran national, has been in ICE custody since December 2014 and transferred at least 15 times across multiple states during ~82 months of detention.
- He filed a § 2241 habeas petition in the District of New Jersey in March 2019 seeking immediate release as unconstitutional prolonged detention; the District Court dismissed it without prejudice on October 1, 2019, reasoning that his detention regime had shifted to § 1231 and thus he was ineligible for relief at that time.
- The Government transferred Argueta out of New Jersey the same day the District Court dismissed the petition; his removal proceedings continued and a stay of removal was later entered by the Second Circuit.
- In April 2020 Argueta (then detained in Louisiana) filed a motion to reopen in the New Jersey court, citing COVID-19-related medical vulnerability and arguing his detention exceeded the Zadvydas presumptively reasonable period; the Government opposed and argued the filing raised new habeas claims and that New Jersey lacked jurisdiction because of his transfer.
- The District Court denied the motion to reopen as a new habeas petition over which it lacked jurisdiction; Argueta appealed. The Third Circuit reversed and remanded, holding the motion was a Rule 60(b)(6) motion (not a new habeas petition) and that the post-filing transfer did not divest the court of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Argueta’s motion to reopen was a new habeas petition or a Rule 60(b)(6) motion | Motion is Rule 60(b)(6): asks reopening based on extraordinary circumstances (COVID, statutory change), not a new claim | Motion raises new Zadvydas and COVID-based habeas claims, so it is a new habeas petition | Motion is a proper Rule 60(b)(6) motion and did not seek vindication of a new habeas "claim"; District Court erred in treating it as a new petition |
| Whether the Government’s post‑filing transfer divested the New Jersey court of jurisdiction to decide the Rule 60(b) motion | Endo/Padilla preserve district court jurisdiction after a petitioner is transferred post‑filing; the court can direct writ to any respondent within reach | Immediate‑custodian rule requires filing in district of confinement; new claims arising after transfer mean New Jersey lacks jurisdiction | Applying Endo and Padilla, the court retained jurisdiction over the post‑filing Rule 60(b) motion; transfer did not strip jurisdiction |
| Whether a Rule 60(b) motion in a § 2241 case should be treated like a successive habeas petition (and implicate abuse‑of‑the‑writ/AEDPA concerns) | Gonzalez framework applies: treat Rule 60(b) as habeas only if it "seeks vindication" of a claim; §2241 not governed by AEDPA gatekeeping though abuse‑of‑the‑writ still limits repeats | Allowing Rule 60(b) to proceed could circumvent forum rules and enable forum‑shopping or post‑transfer litigation in multiple districts | Adopted Gonzalez approach: Rule 60(b) is a new habeas only when it advances a federal basis for relief; abuse‑of‑the‑writ doctrine remains relevant but was not shown here |
| Whether the appellate court should decide the merits of the Rule 60(b)(6) motion | Urged the appellate court to reach merits on extraordinary‑circumstances showing | Opposed (implicitly) to merits resolution at appellate stage | Court declined to decide merits; remanded for district court to exercise equitable discretion on Rule 60(b)(6) relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (immediate‑custodian rule and retention of jurisdiction after government transfers petitioner post‑filing)
- Ex parte Endo, 323 U.S. 283 (1944) (post‑filing transfer does not defeat district court’s ability to grant effective habeas relief)
- Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524 (2005) (Rule 60(b) in habeas context becomes a new petition only when it seeks vindication of a claim)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (recognized a presumptively reasonable six‑month period for post‑removal‑order detention)
- Sessions v. Dimaya, 138 S. Ct. 1204 (2018) (invalidated § 16(b) as unconstitutionally vague; relevant to petitioner’s removal proceedings)
- Ex parte Catanzaro, 138 F.2d 100 (3d Cir. 1943) (transfer of custody after filing does not defeat the court’s jurisdiction over habeas proceedings)
- Bracey v. Superintendent Rockview SCI, 986 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2021) (discussing limits on Rule 60(b) relief in habeas context and distinguishing true Rule 60(b) motions from successive habeas claims)