Medley v. Decker
- Alison Nathan
- 1:18-cv-07361
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Medley v. Decker, Judge Nathan denied Medley’s motion to enforce an earlier order requiring a new immigration bond hearing.
Leon Leonard Medley’s request to enforce the court’s earlier immigration bond-hearing order was denied; the respondents’ compliance with that order was upheld.
What happened
In Medley v. Decker, Leon Leonard Medley asked the court to enforce its earlier order requiring a new immigration bond hearing. He argued that the Immigration Judge had not properly required the government to prove by clear and convincing evidence that he was dangerous or likely to flee.
The Immigration Judge held a new hearing, reviewed evidence about four arrests and other records, considered Medley’s opposing evidence, and denied bond. Medley argued that the evidence was legally insufficient and that the Immigration Judge failed to consider alternatives to detention.
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the motion. The judge ruled that the Immigration Judge followed the earlier order, considered evidence from both sides, and reached a legally permissible conclusion; the court also said it could not enforce a requirement that its earlier order had never imposed.
The detailed version
- Medley v. Decker · No. 1:18-cv-07361
- Alison Nathan
- Mar. 3, 2020
Background
Leon Leonard Medley filed a motion to enforce the court’s December 11, 2019 order. That earlier order conditionally granted his petition challenging the constitutionality of his immigration bond hearing and required the respondents to provide a new hearing at which the government would have to prove his dangerousness or risk of flight by clear and convincing evidence.
The new hearing occurred on December 17, 2019. The Department of Homeland Security submitted a record sheet, criminal complaints and unsigned, unsworn police reports concerning four arrests, and a jail disciplinary report. Medley’s counsel pointed out that the criminal charges had been dismissed except for one harassment violation. Medley also submitted a reentry plan, letters of support, and proof that he attended classes.
On December 26, 2019, the Immigration Judge found that the government had met its burden to show by clear and convincing evidence that Medley posed a danger to the community and denied bond. The Immigration Judge relied on the four complaints and related reports, considered Medley’s evidence, and determined that the evidence did not overcome the danger shown by the alleged violent conduct.
Arguments and standard of review
Medley argued that the Immigration Judge failed to comply with the earlier order because the evidence could not establish dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence. He also argued that the government should have submitted certificates showing how the criminal charges were resolved and that the Immigration Judge should have considered alternatives to detention.
The court said its review was narrow. It would decide whether the respondents complied with the earlier order, not independently reconsider all of the evidence from the bond hearing. The court also assumed, without deciding, that Medley’s motion was a proper way to seek relief and that certain possible review barriers did not prevent consideration of the motion.
Ruling
Judge Alison J. Nathan denied the motion to enforce. The court held that the Immigration Judge reviewed evidence, heard arguments from both sides, considered Medley’s rebuttal evidence, and reached a legally permissible conclusion. The court could not conclude that the evidence relied on by the Immigration Judge could not possibly establish dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence.
The court also rejected Medley’s arguments about the missing certificates of disposition because the Immigration Judge knew that Medley had not been convicted of all the charges. The court declined to enforce a requirement concerning alternatives to detention because the December 11 order had not required the Immigration Judge to consider those alternatives. The motion to enforce was DENIED, resolving Docket No. 32.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.