Summary
This order directs service of Irvin Bernal-Acosta’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition on the Warden, the Attorney General, and the United States Attorney’s Office. It requires the Warden to answer within seven business days, permits additional motions, establishes reply deadlines, and sets procedures for any request for interim relief.
Holdings
- Because it did not plainly appear that petitioner was not entitled to habeas relief, the court directed service of the petition rather than dismissing it at the screening stage.
- The respondent must file an answer within seven business days, certify the true cause of detention, show cause why the petition should not be granted, and provide relevant detention records available to counsel.
- A petitioner seeking release from detention while the habeas petition is pending must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of a substantial constitutional claim and extraordinary and exceptional circumstances making release necessary to preserve the effectiveness of the requested habeas relief.
Questions Presented
- Whether the § 2241 petition should be dismissed at the initial screening stage because it plainly appears that petitioner is not entitled to relief.
- What service and response procedures should govern the habeas petition.
- What showing is required for interim release from detention while the habeas petition is pending.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (4)
- Wilcox v. Ford, 813 F.2d 1140 (11th Cir. 1987)(followed)
- Gomez v. United States, 899 F.2d 1124 (11th Cir. 1990)(followed)
- Wilson v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., No. 17-10060-D, 2017 WL 11815408, at *1 (11th Cir. May 10, 2017)(followed)
- Mapp v. Reno, 241 F.3d 221, 225 (2d Cir. 2001)(persuasive)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…