Gallego v. Decker

Background

Jose Cesar Gallego filed a self-represented petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his arrest and detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He requested release or an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge. Gallego was detained at the Etowah County Detention Center in Alabama after being transferred there from New York. His immigration proceedings began in New York, and he alleged that he requested a bond hearing before the New York immigration court.

The respondents were Thomas Decker, the New York Immigration and Customs Enforcement field director; Chad Wolf, the acting Secretary of Homeland Security; and William P. Barr, the United States Attorney General. Chad Wolf was substituted for former acting Secretary Ken Cuccinelli under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).

Motion and Issue

The respondents moved to dismiss the petition or transfer it to the Northern District of Alabama. They argued that, under the Supreme Court’s “immediate custodian” rule, the warden of the Alabama detention facility was the proper respondent because that official had physical custody of Gallego. They also argued that the case belonged in the district where Gallego was detained.

Gallego argued that the immediate-custodian rule did not control immigration detention and that the federal immigration officials responsible for the contracted detention facility were the proper respondents. The court treated his self-represented filings liberally.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a federal detention petition generally names the person who has custody of the detained individual and can produce that person before the court. In ordinary cases involving physical confinement, that person is usually the warden of the facility where the individual is held. But the Supreme Court had expressly left open how that rule applies to immigration detention.

The court reviewed conflicting decisions from the Southern District of New York. Some decisions treated the local facility warden as the immediate custodian. Others held that, when a person is detained at a nonfederal facility under a contract with the federal government, the federal official with the most immediate control over the facility is the proper respondent.

The court adopted the latter approach. It found that the Alabama facility housed immigration detainees under a contractual relationship with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and that Decker was the most immediate federal official responsible for Gallego. The court concluded that Decker had sufficient immediate, physical, day-to-day control to qualify as Gallego’s immediate custodian. The court also considered traditional venue concerns, including Gallego’s long-standing connections to New York and the fact that his immigration proceedings had taken place there.

Disposition

Judge Davison denied the respondents’ motion to dismiss or transfer the case to the Northern District of Alabama. The court held that Decker was the proper respondent and that the Southern District of New York had jurisdiction over him and over Gallego’s petition. The respondents were ordered to file an answer to the amended petition within 30 days. The ruling addressed the proper respondent and forum; it did not decide whether Gallego’s detention was lawful or whether he was entitled to release or a bond hearing.