Mutzutz Sutuj v. Current or Acting Field Office Director

Background

Jorge Adaberto Mutzutz Sutuj, identified as a federal detainee, filed a pro se petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A pro se filing is submitted without a lawyer. He challenged his prolonged detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) at the Golden State Annex in McFarland, California. He stated that he had been in ICE custody for twelve months and had serious health problems. He argued that his continued detention violated due process and requested release or a hearing about his detention.

He also applied to proceed without paying filing fees and asked the court to appoint counsel.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that Section 2241 allows a federal court to consider a habeas petition—an action challenging unlawful custody—when a person is held in violation of the Constitution or federal law. The court cited the rule that it should order the respondent to explain why relief should not be granted unless the petition shows that the detained person is not entitled to relief.

The court concluded that, read liberally, the petition stated a cognizable claim based on prolonged ICE detention. It relied on precedent discussing the limits on indefinite detention after a final removal order when removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable. This finding allowed the petition to move forward; it was not a final decision on whether Sutuj’s detention was unlawful.

The court denied the request for appointed counsel because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel does not apply to habeas proceedings. It also explained that a federal statute permits discretionary appointment of counsel when the interests of justice require it. The court found that Sutuj had adequately presented his claim and that the issues were not complex, so appointment of counsel was not warranted at that time.

Order and disposition

The court granted Sutuj’s application to proceed without paying filing fees. It denied without prejudice the motion to appoint counsel, meaning the denial did not bar a later request.

The clerk was directed to serve the order and related notices on the respondent and the respondent’s attorney, and to mail a copy to Sutuj. The respondent was ordered to file an answer within 56 days of the order’s issuance, along with relevant previously transcribed portions of the record. Sutuj could file a response within 28 days after receiving the answer. The respondent could instead file a motion to dismiss on procedural grounds within the same 56-day period, with briefing deadlines set by the order.

The order also reminded Sutuj to serve his filings on respondent’s counsel, keep the court informed of any address change, and comply with court orders. It warned that failure to do so could lead to dismissal for failure to prosecute. Judge Robert M. Illman did not make a final ruling on the legality of Sutuj’s detention.