Rahul Rahul v. Warden, Adelanto ICE Processing Center, et al.

Summary

The court orders respondents to show cause why the magistrate judge should not certify facts and initiate civil contempt proceedings based on an alleged transfer of a habeas petitioner in violation of an order preserving the court’s jurisdiction. Respondents must also provide the petitioner’s current location and describe efforts to return him to the Central District of California.

Holdings

1. Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(e)(6)(B), a magistrate judge authorized to hear pretrial matters may investigate whether further contempt proceedings are warranted and, upon finding an act constituting civil contempt, certify the facts to a district judge and require the person involved to appear and show cause why the person should not be adjudged in contempt.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the magistrate judge could investigate an alleged violation of the court's transfer injunction and require Respondents to show cause why the facts should not be certified to a district judge for civil contempt proceedings.
2. Whether Respondents should be required to disclose Petitioner's location and describe efforts to return him to the Central District of California.

Disposition

other