Pak v. Bonnar
- William Alsup
- 3:19-cv-08294
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Pak v. Bonner, Judge Alsup let Pak Lourth proceed without fees and ordered an answer to his challenge to indefinite immigration detention.
Pak Lourth and the respondent responsible for addressing his challenge to continued immigration detention.
What happened
Pak Lourth, an immigration detainee subject to a removal order, filed a self-represented petition challenging his continued detention after Cambodia would not accept his return. He also asked to proceed without paying court fees.
The court found that, when read broadly, the petition stated a valid type of claim for relief under the federal detention statute. The court did not decide whether Pak Lourth’s detention was unlawful.
Judge William Alsup granted the request to proceed without paying fees and ordered the respondent to answer within 30 days, explain why the requested relief should not be granted, and provide relevant documents. Pak Lourth could file a response within 30 days after receiving that answer.
The detailed version
- Pak v. Bonnar · No. 3:19-cv-08294
- William Alsup
- Mar. 2, 2020
Background
Pak Lourth, who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement under a removal order, filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The petition challenged his continued detention because Cambodia would not allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement to return him there. Pak Lourth also requested permission to proceed without paying the court’s filing fees.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that a petition under § 2241 may challenge the execution of a federal sentence or detention when it claims that the detention violates the Constitution, federal law, or a treaty. Reading Pak Lourth’s petition broadly, the court found that it stated a claim that could qualify for habeas relief. The order did not decide the ultimate legality of his detention.
Order
Judge William Alsup granted Pak Lourth’s request to proceed without paying filing fees. The clerk was ordered to serve the order and petition on the respondent, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California, and the United States Attorney General. The respondent was ordered to file and serve an answer within 30 days explaining why the court should not grant habeas relief and to include relevant documents. Pak Lourth was allowed 30 days after service of the answer to file a response. The matter therefore proceeded to an answer rather than receiving a final ruling on the detention claim.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.