Respondents Return in Response to Order to Show Cause
Respondents Return in Response to Order to Show Cause
Respondents Return in Response to Order to Show Cause
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
Case5:13-cv-00512-EJD Document12 Filed02/15/13 Page8 of 10123456789101112Petitioner next argues that § 1226(c) violates the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.Petitioner has cited <strong>to</strong> no authorities support<strong>in</strong>g this view under circumstances like those <strong>in</strong> the<strong>in</strong>stant case. In any event, the Supreme Court has already ruled on the constitutionality of thestatute. See Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510 (2003). See also Rodriguez v. Hayes, 578 F.3d 10321043 (9th Cir. 2009), cit<strong>in</strong>g Demore (“The Supreme Court has held that detention pursuant <strong>to</strong>Section 1226(c) does not raise any due process concerns.”).B. Section 1226(c) does not require immediate detention after release fromcrim<strong>in</strong>al cus<strong>to</strong>dy.Petitioner argues that the “when. . . released” language <strong>in</strong> § 1226(c) means that the alienmust have been taken <strong>in</strong><strong>to</strong> ICE cus<strong>to</strong>dy immediately upon or very shortly after release fromcrim<strong>in</strong>al cus<strong>to</strong>dy. The only Circuit <strong>to</strong> rule on this issue has held that this is not the mean<strong>in</strong>g ofthe statute. See Hosh v. Lucero, 680 F.3d 375 (4th Cir. 2012), cit<strong>in</strong>g Matter of Rojas, 23 I&N13141516171819202122232425262728District of California. The long procedural his<strong>to</strong>ry of that case is <strong>in</strong>structive. In March 2008, thedistrict court denied class certification <strong>in</strong> the case without explanation. Rodriguez v. Hayes, 591F.3d.1105, 1111 (9th Cir. 2010). In the absence of a reasoned decision, the N<strong>in</strong>th Circuitreviewed the district court’s rul<strong>in</strong>g de novo and reversed, hold<strong>in</strong>g that class treatment waswarranted <strong>to</strong> ensure uniform treatment of deta<strong>in</strong>ed aliens. Id. at 1126. In do<strong>in</strong>g so, however, theN<strong>in</strong>th Circuit recognized that some of the class members might be “properly subject <strong>to</strong>manda<strong>to</strong>ry detention and that the regulations currently implement<strong>in</strong>g the various discretionarydetention statutes provide for a different burden of proof at bond hear<strong>in</strong>gs.” Id. at 1125(observ<strong>in</strong>g that “class members may have suffered no <strong>in</strong>jury or different <strong>in</strong>juries” due <strong>to</strong> aliens’different immigration statuses). Accord<strong>in</strong>gly, the N<strong>in</strong>th Circuit remanded the case for the districtcourt <strong>to</strong> consider, among other th<strong>in</strong>gs, “whether formation of subclasses would be appropriate” <strong>in</strong>light of the different statu<strong>to</strong>ry and constitutional standards applicable <strong>to</strong> different members of thecertified class. Id. at 1126. On remand, contrary <strong>to</strong> the N<strong>in</strong>th Circuit’s guidance, the districtcourt issued an order certify<strong>in</strong>g a s<strong>in</strong>gle, unified class effectively encompass<strong>in</strong>g every deta<strong>in</strong>edalien <strong>in</strong> the Central District. It also issued a prelim<strong>in</strong>ary <strong>in</strong>junction and, with no analysis <strong>to</strong>expla<strong>in</strong> its decision, granted sweep<strong>in</strong>g habeas relief compell<strong>in</strong>g ICE <strong>to</strong> provide a bond hear<strong>in</strong>gbefore an Immigration Judge for any alien after six months of detention. Rodriguez v. Robb<strong>in</strong>s,No. CV-07-03239 TJH-RNB, Docket No. 255. That <strong>in</strong>junction would encompass even thepetitioner <strong>in</strong> Demore v. Kim, whom the Supreme Court held was not entitled <strong>to</strong> such relief. TheCentral District’s decision has been appealed on an expedited schedule and is set for hear<strong>in</strong>g nextmonth. See Rodriguez v. Robb<strong>in</strong>s, No. 12-56734 (filed <strong>in</strong> N<strong>in</strong>th Circuit on November 21, 2012).<strong>Respondents</strong> submit that the Central District’s order <strong>in</strong> Rodriguez should be given no weights<strong>in</strong>ce it is contrary <strong>to</strong> Supreme Court precedent and offers no analysis for this Court <strong>to</strong> consider.RESPONDENTS’ RETURN IN RESPONSE TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE AND PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUSCase No. C 13-0512 EJD 8