Hisseine Tchouli Gombo v. Warden, Alexandria Staging Facility, et al.

Summary

The court overruled respondents’ objections under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) and affirmed a magistrate judge’s order permitting limited jurisdictional discovery. The discovery concerns whether petitioner Hisseine Tchouli Gombo, who was transferred from United States immigration detention to Eswatini, remains in the actual or constructive custody of the United States. The court held that questions regarding the United States–Eswatini relationship and the petitioner’s potential redressability warranted discovery before resolving the respondents’ jurisdictional and other dismissal arguments.

Holdings

1. The magistrate judge did not clearly err or act contrary to law by ordering limited jurisdictional discovery into whether petitioner remained in the actual or constructive custody of the United States. The Memorandum of Understanding and petitioner's additional statement supplied more than mere speculation or conclusory assertions and justified discovery concerning the ongoing relationship and responsibilities between the United States and Eswatini.
2. The court rejected respondents' argument that removal rendered the petition moot for lack of redressability. If discovery establishes that petitioner remains in the actual or constructive custody of the United States, the alleged injury would be redressable because the United States would retain power to direct or otherwise influence relief by Eswatini.
3. The magistrate judge did not err by declining to address respondents' remaining dismissal arguments before ordering jurisdictional discovery. Jurisdictional facts may be developed through discovery when they are intertwined with the merits and are not clearly immaterial or frivolous.
4. Chaudhry v. Mobil Oil Corp. did not require a different result because the present motion raised threshold Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional issues requiring discovery, whereas Chaudhry involved a motion incorrectly characterized under Rule 12(b)(1) rather than Rule 12(b)(6).

Questions Presented

1. Whether the magistrate judge's order granting limited jurisdictional discovery was clearly erroneous or contrary to law because petitioner's transfer to Eswatini allegedly made the habeas petition moot and non-redressable.
2. Whether the magistrate judge was required to resolve respondents' other asserted grounds for dismissal, including the effect of the Immigration and Nationality Act and a non-opt-out class action, before ordering jurisdictional discovery.
3. Whether Chaudhry v. Mobil Oil Corp. required the court to stay or deny jurisdictional discovery because the case might be resolved on a motion to dismiss.

Disposition

affirmed