Santana-Rivas v. Warden of Clinton County Correctional Facility, et al.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania partially adopted a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation in Marielis Santana-Rivas’s habeas corpus action challenging her immigration detention. The court held that it had jurisdiction to review the continued detention, that 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), rather than § 1225, governed her detention, and that the detention had become unconstitutionally prolonged. The court declined to adopt the recommendation awarding attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act at that stage.

Holdings

1. Sections 1252(g) and 1252(b)(9) did not strip the district court of jurisdiction under § 2241 to review Petitioner's ongoing detention.
2. Section 1225 was inapplicable to Petitioner, and her detention was governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). Respondents could not re-detain her under § 1225(b)(2)(A).
3. Petitioner's approximately fifteen-month immigration detention had become unconstitutionally prolonged.
4. The court declined to adopt the recommendation awarding attorney's fees and costs at that stage of the proceedings.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the district court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to review Petitioner's continued immigration detention notwithstanding 8 U.S.C. §§ 1252(g) and 1252(b)(9).
2. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), rather than 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), governed Petitioner's detention.
3. Whether Petitioner's approximately fifteen-month detention had become unconstitutionally prolonged.
4. Whether Respondents' argument that EAJA fees were premature required rejection of the magistrate judge's fee recommendation.

Disposition

writ_granted