Naranjo v. Bonnar
- James Donato
- 3:19-cv-07585
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Naranjo v. Bonnar, Judge Donato ordered immigration officials to respond to Silvio Naranjo’s petition challenging his apparently indefinite detention.
Silvio Naranjo and the federal respondents responsible for responding to his detention petition.
What happened
Naranjo v. Bonnar concerns Silvio Naranjo, who was held at an immigration detention center for more than six months under a final deportation order. He filed a petition without a lawyer, saying Ecuador did not recognize him as a citizen and that his detention appeared to be continuing indefinitely.
The court said the record did not clearly show what detention proceedings Naranjo had received, including whether he had received an individual custody hearing. It therefore directed the federal respondents to explain their position and provide a formal response to the petition.
Judge Donato ordered service of the petition and the order, set deadlines for the respondents’ response and Naranjo’s reply, and said the court would schedule a hearing if warranted. The order did not decide whether Naranjo was entitled to release or other relief.
The detailed version
- Naranjo v. Bonnar · No. 3:19-cv-07585
- James Donato
- Jan. 15, 2020
Background
Silvio Naranjo filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure that allows a person to challenge the legality of detention. The opinion says Naranjo was subject to a final order of deportation and had been held at the Mesa Verde Immigration and Customs Enforcement Processing Center in Bakersfield, California, for more than six months. He asserted that Ecuador, his country of origin, did not recognize him as a citizen and that his detention appeared to be continuing indefinitely.
Naranjo brought one claim under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). The petition referred to detention communications in August and November 2019, but the court could not determine whether he had received an individualized custody hearing.
Order
Because the detention record was unclear, the court ordered the federal respondents to file a return, meaning a formal response to the petition. The response must state the respondents’ position on whether an injunction issued in Gonzalez v. Sessions, 325 F.R.D. 616, 629 (N.D. Cal. 2018), applies to Naranjo.
The clerk was directed to issue a summons, and the United States Marshal was directed to serve the petition and order on the respondents without requiring advance payment of fees. The respondents’ return was due February 3, 2020. To accommodate Naranjo’s status as a person without a lawyer, the court allowed him to file a response or reply by February 24, 2020. The court said it would set a hearing if warranted.
Disposition
Judge James Donato issued an order to show cause and directed the respondents to respond. The order did not decide the merits of Naranjo’s detention claim or grant or deny habeas relief.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.