Barocio-Mendez v. Warden of Immigration Detention Facility

Background

Juan Barocio-Mendez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his ongoing detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Mesa Verde ICE Processing Facility in Bakersfield, California. He proceeded without a lawyer and had paid the full filing fee. He also requested appointed counsel, a stay of removal, and permission to proceed without paying the filing fee.

The opinion states that Barocio-Mendez was born in Mexico, entered the United States on or about 1977, and is not a United States citizen. He was convicted of attempted murder. ICE began refusing to establish a bond on May 29, 2018, and he remained in ICE custody without bond. An immigration judge ordered his removal on or about August 24, 2018; his appeal was dismissed on March 7, 2019.

Barocio-Mendez alleged that his detention had lasted approximately 27 months and had become unreasonably prolonged and unconstitutional without a bond hearing addressing flight risk and dangerousness. He also alleged that ICE refused to establish a bond or release him through the Intensive Supervision Appearance Program.

Court’s analysis and rulings

The court explained that federal courts may review petitions challenging the lawfulness of a noncitizen’s detention under § 2241. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, the court stated that continued detention after a final removal order is not authorized indefinitely when removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable. The court concluded that Barocio-Mendez had stated a claim that was properly considered under § 2241. It did not decide the ultimate legality of his detention.

The court held that the Warden of Immigration Detention Facility was the proper respondent because a § 2241 habeas respondent is generally the person able to produce the detained person before the court. The court dismissed all other named respondents.

The court denied the request to proceed without paying the filing fee as moot because Barocio-Mendez had already paid the $5 filing fee. It denied the request for appointed counsel without prejudice, explaining that he had adequately presented his claim. The court stated that it could appoint counsel on its own motion if an evidentiary hearing later became necessary.

The court also denied the motion to stay removal without prejudice. It found that Barocio-Mendez had not satisfied either applicable standard for a stay: showing a probability of success and possible irreparable injury, or raising serious legal questions while showing that the balance of hardships sharply favored him. The court also noted his statement that the Ninth Circuit had already granted a stay of removal pending review on September 17, 2019. The court stated that he could renew the motion if circumstances changed.

Procedural directives

The court ordered the proper respondent to file and serve an answer within 60 days, including relevant documents and an explanation why the requested writ should not issue. Barocio-Mendez may file and serve a response within 60 days after receiving the answer. The order also required him to keep the court informed of address changes and to serve the respondent’s counsel with his court communications. The court terminated docket entries 3, 4, and 5, which corresponded to the pending motions.

Disposition

The order corrected the petitioner’s last name in the court’s electronic filing system, denied the filing-fee request as moot, dismissed the other named respondents, denied appointment of counsel without prejudice, denied the motion to stay removal without prejudice, and required an answer to the detention petition. It was an order to show cause rather than a final decision on the detention claim.