Jimenez v. Current or Acting Field Office Director
Martinez Jimenez v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Susan Van Keulen
- 5:23-cv-03566
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Martinez Jimenez v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, Judge van Keulen ordered an answer to a detention challenge and granted counsel and permission to proceed without fees.
Victor Martinez Jimenez, who challenged his immigration detention, and the respondent immigration officials required to answer the petition.
What happened
In Martinez Jimenez v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, Victor Martinez Jimenez challenged his continued detention by immigration authorities while removal proceedings were pending. He alleged that being held without a bond hearing violated due process and the Eighth Amendment. The petition states that he had been detained since October 11, 2022, after serving 26 years in California state custody.
The court found that, when read broadly, the petition presented claims that could support relief. It ordered the respondent to explain why the petition should not be granted, but it did not yet decide whether Victor Martinez Jimenez should be released or receive another remedy. The court also granted his request to proceed without paying court fees and granted his request for a lawyer.
Judge Susan van Keulen directed the respondent to file an answer by December 6, 2023, and allowed Victor Martinez Jimenez to reply by December 27, 2023. She directed the Federal Public Defender’s Office to file a notice of appearance for him by December 6, 2023, and instructed the Clerk to serve the required documents.
The detailed version
- Jimenez v. Current or Acting Field Office Director · No. 5:23-cv-03566
- Susan Van Keulen
- Nov. 6, 2023
Background
Victor Martinez Jimenez, representing himself when he filed the case, petitioned under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge his continued detention by the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He alleged that he was detained while removal proceedings were pending and had not received a bond hearing. According to the petition, he had been detained since October 11, 2022, and had previously served 26 years in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He was being held at Golden State Annex, an immigration detention facility in Macfarland, California.
Claims and initial review
Victor Martinez Jimenez claimed that continued detention without a bond hearing violated due process and the Eighth Amendment. The court explained that federal district courts may review immigration judges’ bond-hearing decisions for constitutional claims and legal errors. It also stated that prolonged detention without a bond hearing may support relief under § 2241.
At this stage, the court did not decide the ultimate merits of the detention challenge. Instead, it concluded that, liberally read, the petition stated claims that could support relief and ordered the respondent to show cause—meaning to explain why the requested relief should not be granted.
Appointment of counsel and fee waiver
The court granted Victor Martinez Jimenez’s motion for appointment of counsel. It noted that the Sixth Amendment does not provide a right to counsel in these proceedings, but that federal law allows a court to appoint counsel when the interests of justice require it and the petitioner cannot afford representation. The court relied on the length of his detention and the complexity of the issues raised.
The court also granted leave to proceed without paying court filing fees because of his lack of funds.
Orders and deadlines
Judge Susan van Keulen ordered the Clerk to serve the respondent and the United States Attorney with the jurisdiction-consent form, the order, and the petition with its attachments, and to send copies to the United States Attorney General. The respondent had to file the consent form and an answer by December 6, 2023. If Victor Martinez Jimenez wished to respond, he had to file and serve a reply by December 27, 2023. The Federal Public Defender’s Office was to receive a copy of the order, and appointed counsel had to file a notice of appearance by December 6, 2023.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.