Roberto M.D. v. Garland
- Nancy Brasel
- 0:21-cv-01343
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Roberto M.D. v. Garland, Judge Leung granted amendment but denied expedition without prejudice, requiring a new petition.
Roberto M.D., who must file a complete amended petition before the respondents are directed to answer.
What happened
In Roberto M.D. v. Garland, Roberto M.D. asked to amend his immigration-detention petition and to have the case considered more quickly.
The court allowed the amendment because it was filed on time, but found that the proposed patchwork amendment was unclear. It also found insufficient support for Roberto M.D.’s claim that he faced an immediate risk of contracting COVID-19.
Judge Tony N. Leung granted the motion to amend and ordered a new, complete petition within 20 days. He denied the motion to expedite without prejudice, meaning it may be brought again.
The detailed version
- Roberto M.D. v. Garland · No. 0:21-cv-01343
- Nancy Brasel
- June 24, 2021
Background
Roberto M.D., proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging immigration-related detention. He also moved to amend the petition and asked the court to expedite the case.
Motion to Amend
The court treated Roberto M.D.’s motion to “alter” the petition as a motion to amend it. Because he filed the motion 11 days after the original petition, the court found that it was timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1).
The court noted, however, that Roberto M.D. appeared to be trying to combine portions of the original petition with portions of the proposed amendment. Local Rule 15.1(a) generally requires an amended pleading to be complete in itself and not incorporate an earlier pleading by reference. The court also found uncertainty about whether the proposed amendment would keep the original petition’s first count.
The court granted the motion to amend but required Roberto M.D. to file an entirely new petition containing all claims he wished to pursue. The new petition had to fully replace, rather than supplement, the original petition and had to be filed within 20 days of the order. The clerk was directed to provide copies of the original petition, the motion to amend, and the court’s form for filing a § 2241 petition. The court stated that the respondents would be directed to answer after Roberto M.D. clarified his claims.
Motion to Expedite
The court denied the motion to expedite without prejudice. It found that Roberto M.D. had not shown that his case materially differed from other habeas cases involving people detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It also found that he provided insufficient support for his assertion that he faced an imminent risk of contracting COVID-19 and provided no information about the extent of COVID-19 at the detention facility. Finally, the court attributed some delay to the confusion caused by the motion to amend and the need to clarify the claims.
Disposition
Judge Tony N. Leung granted the motion to amend and denied the motion to expedite without prejudice. The order did not decide the merits of Roberto M.D.’s detention claims.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.