Harryram v. Decker
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-07254
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Chandrapal Harryram v. Thomas Decker, Judge Furman ordered a location check before deciding whether the immigration-detention case belonged in New York or New Jersey.
Chandrapal Harryram, an immigration detainee, and the respondents, including Thomas Decker in his official capacity as Field Office Director of the New York City Field Office of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
What happened
In Chandrapal Harryram v. Thomas Decker, Chandrapal Harryram filed a petition challenging his immigration detention in the Southern District of New York. The petition said he might already have been moved to Bergen County Jail in New Jersey when he filed it.
The court said it has repeatedly held that it lacks authority to hear an immigration-detention petition if the detainee was no longer in the district when the petition was filed. But the court did not decide where Harryram was at that time or finally resolve the case.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered Harryram’s lawyer to investigate his location and file a letter by September 8, 2020. If Harryram had already been transferred and did not agree to moving the case to New Jersey, the lawyers had to attend a telephone conference on September 9. The order also required service of the petition on the respondents and prompt filing of proof of service.
The detailed version
- Harryram v. Decker · No. 1:20-cv-07254
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 4, 2020
Background
Chandrapal Harryram, described in the order as an immigration detainee, filed a petition for a court order reviewing his detention at 4:06 p.m. on September 4, 2020. The petition alleged that he had been detained in the Southern District of New York the previous day, but that his deportation officer said he would be transferred to Bergen County Jail in New Jersey that day. The petition also alleged that he had been, or would be, transferred there at some point.
Jurisdiction issue
Harryram appeared to argue that the Southern District of New York could hear the petition even if he had been transferred to New Jersey before filing. The court disagreed with that position. It stated that, although judges in the district were divided on the issue, Judge Furman had repeatedly held that jurisdiction does not exist in the district when the petitioner was not physically present there when the petition was filed. The order cited several earlier related proceedings and other decisions.
The court did not determine whether Harryram was still in the Southern District of New York at 4:06 p.m. The order therefore did not grant or deny the petition and did not reach the substance of Harryram’s detention claim.
Orders and deadlines
The court directed Harryram’s counsel to immediately investigate his location at the filing time. By September 8, 2020, at 10:00 a.m., Harryram had to file a letter stating whether he was still in the district when the petition was filed and, if he had already been transferred to Bergen County, whether he consented to immediate transfer of the case to the District of New Jersey.
If Harryram did not consent to transfer, counsel for all parties had to appear for a telephone conference on September 9, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. The order also required Harryram’s counsel to serve the respondents with the petition, accompanying papers, and the order by overnight mail no later than September 5, 2020, and to file proof of service. Counsel for the respondents had to promptly file notices of appearance. The order included additional requirements concerning conference participation, electronic filing, extensions, and any later settlement or termination of the case.
Disposition
Judge Jesse M. Furman issued an order requiring further factual investigation and setting procedural requirements. The opinion does not state that the petition was dismissed, transferred, granted, or denied.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.