Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Mar. 24, 2020

Avendano Hernandez v. Decker

Judge
James Oetken
Docket
2:20-cv-01589
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
1
HabeasImmigrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Gaspar Avendaño Hernandez v. Decker, Judge Oetken ordered a response to a release motion in an immigration-detention case without deciding the motion.

Who this affects

Gaspar Avendaño Hernandez, who is detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the respondents, who were ordered to respond to his release motion.

What happened

Gaspar Avendaño Hernandez filed a petition challenging his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Gaspar Avendaño Hernandez v. Decker.

He also filed a letter motion asking the respondents to release him under Mapp v. Reno. The opinion does not decide whether he should be released.

Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered the respondents to respond by March 27, 2020, and allowed Avendaño Hernandez to file a reply by March 30, 2020.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Avendano Hernandez v. Decker · No. 2:20-cv-01589
Judge
James Oetken
Date
Mar. 24, 2020

Background

Gaspar Avendaño Hernandez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a law that allows a person to challenge certain forms of detention in federal court. He seeks relief from his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Avendaño Hernandez also filed a letter motion asking the respondents to compel his release under Mapp v. Reno, 241 F.3d 221 (2d Cir. 2001). The opinion does not explain the underlying facts of his detention or the arguments supporting the requested release.

Order

Judge J. Paul Oetken did not grant or deny the release motion. Instead, the court directed the respondents to file a response of no more than six pages by March 27, 2020. The court allowed Avendaño Hernandez to file a reply of no more than two pages by March 30, 2020, if he chose to do so.

The authoritative version

Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.