Manrique v. O'Keefe
- Laurel Beeler
- 3:21-cv-08395
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Manrique v. O’Keefe, Judge Beeler ordered a response to an extradition habeas petition without deciding its merits.
Alejandro Toledo Manrique, who challenged his certification for extradition, and Donald O’Keefe, whom the court ordered to respond to the petition.
What happened
In Manrique v. O’Keefe, Alejandro Toledo Manrique challenged his certification for extradition to Peru, where he is accused of collusion and money laundering. He filed the challenge under a federal law allowing people to contest detention or extradition in federal court.
The court issued an order requiring Donald O’Keefe, the respondent, to explain why the petition should not be granted and to file a response. The court did not decide whether the extradition certification was lawful or whether Manrique should receive relief.
Judge Laurel Beeler set November 18, 2021, for the respondent’s response and December 16, 2021, for Manrique’s reply. The court said it would later decide whether to hear the matter or resolve it based on the written filings.
The detailed version
- Manrique v. O'Keefe · No. 3:21-cv-08395
- Laurel Beeler
- Nov. 1, 2021
Background
Alejandro Toledo Manrique, identified in the order as the former President of Peru, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a certification that he could be extradited to Peru. The order says he is accused there of collusion and money laundering. The respondent is Donald O’Keefe, identified in the caption as the United States Marshal for the Northern District of California.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that extradition may be challenged through a federal petition for habeas corpus, which is a procedure asking a federal court to review the legality of a person’s detention or related custody. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, the court generally must either grant the requested writ or order the respondent to explain why it should not be granted, unless the petition itself shows that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.
Order
The court ordered the respondent to respond to the petition. The response, called the respondent’s return, was due November 18, 2021, and Manrique’s reply, called a traverse, was due December 16, 2021. The parties could adjust the schedule by agreement. The court said it would either resolve the matter based on the written submissions or set a hearing, at its discretion.
Judge Laurel Beeler did not decide the merits of Manrique’s challenge to extraditability. The order required the case to proceed to the response stage.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.