Mercado-Guillen v. Nielsen
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:18-cv-00727-HSG
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Mercado-Guillen v. Mayorkas, Judge Gilliam dismissed the habeas petition without prejudice after the parties jointly requested dismissal following an appellate remand.
Ricardo Mercado-Guillen, the federal respondents, and the Contra Costa County Sheriff; the action was dismissed without prejudice, and the parties agreed to bear their own costs and fees.
What happened
In Mercado-Guillen v. Mayorkas, the court had previously granted Ricardo Mercado-Guillen’s petition for habeas corpus in 2018. Federal respondents appealed, and the parties later asked the appeals court to vacate that decision after a Supreme Court ruling affected the legal issue.
The appeals court granted that request, vacated the earlier order, and sent the matter back to the district court. The parties then jointly asked the district court to dismiss the action without prejudice. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agreed not to arrest Mercado-Guillen again unless circumstances changed, and each side agreed to pay its own costs and fees.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. dismissed the action without prejudice after considering the joint motion and the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s statement that he took no position.
The detailed version
- Mercado-Guillen v. Nielsen · No. 4:18-cv-00727-HSG
- Haywood Gilliam
- Sept. 20, 2023
Background
Ricardo Mercado-Guillen filed a petition for habeas corpus against federal respondents, including the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Contra Costa County Sheriff. The filing states that the case involved a non-detained petitioner. The Sheriff stated that he took no position on the petition and would not appear unless ordered by the court.
Earlier proceedings
On April 19, 2018, the district court granted the petition, finding that the case was controlled by Diouf v. Napolitano (“Diouf II”). Federal respondents appealed. The parties agreed to hold the appeal while related litigation proceeded and then jointly asked the Ninth Circuit to vacate and return the district court’s order because of the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez.
The Ninth Circuit granted that request on July 26, 2023, vacated the district court’s order, and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The mandate issued on September 18, 2023.
Dismissal
After the remand, Mercado-Guillen and the federal respondents jointly moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) to dismiss the action without prejudice. The parties stated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement had agreed not to re-arrest Mercado-Guillen unless circumstances changed. They also agreed that each party would bear its own costs and fees, and that Mercado-Guillen would not seek attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act or another legal provision.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the requested disposition by ordering that the action be dismissed without prejudice. The order relied on the joint motion and the Sheriff’s statement that he took no position. The opinion text does not state the date on which the order was signed; the date in the metadata header comes from the supplied filing-date information.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.