756 F. Supp. 2d 585
S.D.N.Y.2010Background
- Freire petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging ICE detention during ongoing removal proceedings.
- Initially detained at OCPC in New Mexico; petition filed in the District of New Mexico.
- NM court transferred the petition to SDNY because Freire had been moved to Varick Detention Facility in NYC.
- ICE planned to suspend housing at Varick and relocate detainees to HCCF in New Jersey, outside SDNY.
- Freire was last detained at HCCF and released on bond; SDNY lacks jurisdiction over HCCF facility and proper respondent.
- Petition dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to refiling in the district of confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether SDNY has jurisdiction over the petition for habeas relief. | Freire's confinement is in SDNY, so jurisdiction lies here. | Confinement at HCCF (NJ) is outside SDNY, so SDNY lacks jurisdiction. | Lacks jurisdiction; must be filed in the district of confinement (New Jersey). |
| Who is the proper respondent for a habeas petition challenging current confinement. | Warden of the facility where Freire is detained should respond. | Warden of HCCF is proper; elsewhere would be inappropriate. | Warden of HCCF is proper; however SDNY cannot exercise jurisdiction over that respondent. |
| Whether venue attracts to the district where confinement occurs rather than where petition was filed. | Venue lies where petitioner was detained, currently SDNY. | Venue follows where confinement occurs (New Jersey). | Venue should align with confinement district (New Jersey). |
| Whether Freire's bond release moots the petition. | Release on bond does not moot habeas petition. | Release could moot petition. | Mootness not established; still lacks proper jurisdiction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (U.S. 2004) ("the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held" in habeas challenges to present confinement)
- Excellent v. Ashcroft, 359 F. Supp. 2d 333 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (habeas petition not mooted by confinement release when government retains authority to revoke release)
- Monestime v. Reilly, 704 F. Supp. 2d 453 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (context for housing changes affecting jurisdiction analysis in SDNY)