Johnson v. Orsino
1:12-cv-06913
S.D.N.Y.Apr 24, 2013Background
- Johnson, a Jamaican national, has been detained by ICE since January 18, 2012, pending removal proceedings.
- An IJ ordered Johnson removed to Jamaica in December 2012; his appeal to the BIA remains pending.
- Johnson challenges mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c) as improperly applied because detention did not commence immediately after his release from state custody.
- Johnson argues prolonged detention without an individualized bond hearing violates due process.
- The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(a) & (c) and will hold a hearing on July 2, 2013 to reassess the claim.
- The court declines to dismiss all respondents but treats Dominic Orsino, the warden, as the likely proper respondent, reserving a decision at the July hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1226(c) authorizes Johnson’s detention despite a four-year gap after his release. | Johnson argues the phrase 'when the alien is released' implies immediate custody. | Government argues 1226(c) is ambiguous and permits detention even if custody did not follow release. | § 1226(c) ambiguity and deference to BIA interpretation sustain detention. |
| Whether Johnson’s prolonged detention without an individualized bond hearing violates due process. | Johnson contends lengthy detention without individualized review is unconstitutional. | Government asserts detention is justified to deter flight and ensure appearance, with no per se constitutional violation. | Detention not proven unconstitutional; due process analysis weighs total context and proximity to final removal. |
| Proper respondent for habeas challenge to present confinement. | Johnson seeks relief against the federal official(s) supervising his custody. | Immediate custodian rule points to the warden as the proper respondent. | Warden likely proper respondent; court retains others pending July hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (U.S. Supreme Court 2003) (upheld mandatory detention but with limits on duration and due-process concerns)
- Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221 (3d Cir. 2011) (holds implicit reasonable time limits to § 1226(c) detention)
- Hosh v. Lucero, 680 F.3d 375 (4th Cir. 2012) (affirms BIA interpretation of § 1226(c) as permissible under Chevron)
- Ruiz-Almanzar v. Ridge, 485 F.3d 193 (2d Cir. 2007) (rule of lenity cannot override reasonable BIA construction)
- Mizrahi v. Gonzales, 492 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2007) (lenity used only as last resort when agency interpretations fail)
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (U.S. Supreme Court 2001) (establishes limits on indefinite detention and due-process considerations)