Darboe v. Decker
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:19-cv-11393
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Darboe v. Decker, Judge Ramos transferred the detention challenge to the District of New Jersey because the court lacked jurisdiction over Darboe’s confinement.
The order affected Ousman Darboe’s habeas petition and request for release by moving them from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey. It also identified Steven Ahrendt, the Bergen County Jail warden, as the proper immediate-custodian respondent.
What happened
Darboe v. Decker concerns Ousman Darboe’s challenge to his continued immigration detention and to the process used at his bond hearing. He sought release, a bond hearing, and other relief.
The government argued that the case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction or transferred to the federal court in New Jersey, where Darboe was confined. Darboe argued that Thomas R. Decker, an ICE field-office director, was the proper respondent because he had authority over Darboe’s detention.
Judge Ramos ruled that Darboe’s challenge was a direct challenge to his physical detention, making the warden of the facility his immediate custodian and making New Jersey the proper location for the case. The court granted the motion to transfer and transferred Darboe’s request for release to the District of New Jersey.
The detailed version
- Darboe v. Decker · No. 1:19-cv-11393
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 2, 2020
Background
Ousman Darboe filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and related claims challenging his continued detention by immigration authorities. He specifically challenged the process used at his bond hearing, where an immigration judge denied his request for release on bond. Darboe argued that the immigration judge improperly placed on him the burden of showing that continued civil detention was unwarranted. He sought immediate release, a bond hearing, and declaratory and injunctive relief.
The respondents moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, where Darboe was confined at the Bergen County Jail. Darboe argued that Thomas R. Decker, the ICE New York City Field Office Director, was the proper respondent because Decker allegedly had authority to transport, transfer, or release him and exercised operational control over his detention.
Court’s Analysis
The court explained that a petition challenging a person’s physical confinement generally must be brought against the person’s immediate custodian—the official who has custody over the detained person—and in the federal district where the person is confined. The court treated Darboe’s challenge as a “core” habeas challenge because it directly concerned his continued detention. The court rejected the argument that the bond-hearing challenge changed the nature of the case, reasoning that the requested relief would still be a bond hearing at which Darboe could challenge his continued detention.
The court concluded that Steven Ahrendt, the warden of the Bergen County Jail, was Darboe’s immediate physical custodian. It found that ICE’s decision-making authority, the detention facility’s contractual relationship with ICE, and the ICE handbook and detention standards did not establish that Decker exercised day-to-day control over Darboe. The court also rejected Darboe’s argument that applying the immediate-custodian rule could produce an undesirable result if he were transferred after filing the petition.
Ruling
The court held that venue was proper in the District of New Jersey because Darboe was confined there when he filed the petition and because the warden of the Bergen County Jail was his immediate custodian. Because the Southern District of New York lacked jurisdiction over Darboe’s confinement in New Jersey, Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the government’s motion to transfer the petition to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The court also transferred Darboe’s motion for release and directed the clerk to transfer the action as quickly as feasible. The opinion did not decide the merits of Darboe’s challenge to the bond-hearing process.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.