Siddiqui v. Department of Homeland Security
- Susan Nelson
- 0:20-cv-01325
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 3
In M. Siddiqui v. Department of Homeland Security, Judge Nelson dismissed the detention petition without prejudice and denied the fee-waiver application as moot.
The petitioners, a group of individuals detained during or after immigration removal proceedings, had their joint petition dismissed without prejudice and their application to proceed without paying the filing fee denied as moot. The Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement were the respondents.
What happened
M. Siddiqui and other petitioners, who were detained during immigration removal proceedings or while awaiting removal, jointly accused the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement of discrimination in enforcing immigration laws. After they amended their petition, the magistrate judge recommended dismissal because pleading problems remained.
The petitioners objected, arguing that the court should appoint a lawyer before dismissing the case. They also said some petitioners could not provide affidavits needed to support their applications to proceed without paying filing fees because those people had been removed to other places.
Judge Susan Nelson overruled the objection and adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendation. The court dismissed the detention petition without prejudice because of the pleading deficiencies and denied the application to proceed without paying filing fees as moot. The court also ruled that the petitioners had no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in these proceedings.
The detailed version
- Siddiqui v. Department of Homeland Security · No. 0:20-cv-01325
- Susan Nelson
- Dec. 21, 2020
Background
M. Siddiqui and other petitioners jointly filed a petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The opinion describes the petitioners as individuals detained either while removal proceedings were pending or while they awaited execution of final removal orders. They accused the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement of discrimination in enforcing federal immigration laws.
On July 16, 2020, Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz ordered the petitioners to correct pleading deficiencies. The petitioners filed an amended petition, but the magistrate judge found that it still did not correct the identified problems. He recommended dismissing the petition without prejudice and dismissing the petitioners’ application to proceed in forma pauperis, meaning without paying the filing fee, as moot.
Objection
The petitioners objected to the recommendation. They argued that the magistrate judge should have appointed counsel before recommending dismissal. They also argued that they could not obtain supporting affidavits from all petitioners because some had been “deported/removed to other places.”
Court’s Analysis
The district court reviewed the specifically challenged portions of the recommendation from the beginning, a process called de novo review. The court concluded that the magistrate judge correctly recommended dismissal based on the pleading deficiencies identified in the recommendation.
The court rejected the argument that counsel had to be appointed. It stated that there is no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in habeas proceedings. The court added that the result would be the same even if the filing were treated as a civil class-action complaint, because there is also no constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in civil proceedings.
Disposition
Judge Susan Richard Nelson overruled the petitioners’ objection and adopted the Report and Recommendation. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice, meaning the dismissal itself did not bar refiling. The court denied the application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. The order directed that judgment be entered accordingly.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.