Martinez-Done v. Tay-Taylor
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:14-cv-03071
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Martinez-Done v. Tay-Taylor, Chief Judge McMahon ordered 45-day briefing after remand for further consideration in light of Supreme Court decisions.
The order affects Diomedes Martinez-Done and the respondents, including Yvette Tay-Taylor in her official capacity as Assistant Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, by requiring briefing on any remaining disputed issues.
What happened
Martinez-Done v. Tay-Taylor is an immigration case that was reassigned to Chief Judge Colleen McMahon after having been handled by Judge Scheindlin.
The Court of Appeals sent the matter back to the district court for further consideration in light of Supreme Court decisions in Nielsen v. Preap and Jennings v. Rodriguez. The parties did not oppose sending the matter back, according to the order.
Chief Judge McMahon ordered the parties to brief, within 45 days, any issues that remain disputed. The order does not decide those issues.
The detailed version
- Martinez-Done v. Tay-Taylor · No. 1:14-cv-03071
- Colleen McMahon
- Apr. 30, 2020
Background
Diomedes Martinez-Done is identified as the petitioner, and Yvette Tay-Taylor, in her official capacity as Assistant Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, is identified as a respondent. The order states that the immigration case was previously before Judge Scheindlin and was later reassigned to Chief Judge Colleen McMahon.
Court of Appeals Remand
The Court of Appeals remanded, meaning it sent the matter back to the district court for further consideration. The appellate court cited the Supreme Court’s decisions in Nielsen v. Preap and Jennings v. Rodriguez. The order states that, in response to orders requiring the parties to explain their positions, the parties did not oppose remand.
Order
Chief Judge McMahon gave the parties 45 days to brief any issues that remained in dispute. The opinion does not identify those issues clearly because part of the briefing sentence is unreadable in the provided text. The order does not resolve the underlying immigration dispute or state a ruling on the merits.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.