Castaneda Florez v. Decker
- Ronnie Abrams
- 1:20-cv-08699
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Castaneda Florez v. Decker, Judge Abrams ordered the petitioner to explain why the case should not be transferred to New Jersey.
Edison Castañeda Florez, who was detained at Bergen County Jail, and the government respondents named in the case. The order required Castañeda Florez to address whether the case should be transferred from the Southern District of New York to the District of New Jersey.
What happened
Castaneda Florez v. Decker concerns Edison Castañeda Florez’s challenge to his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He claimed that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing violated procedural due process and that officials’ response to the medical risks of COVID-19 violated substantive due process.
Castañeda Florez was detained at Bergen County Jail in New Jersey, while the case was filed in the Southern District of New York. He argued that New York was the proper venue and that Thomas Decker, the director of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement field office, was the proper respondent.
Judge Ronnie Abrams said the court was inclined to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey because the facility’s warden may be the proper custodian for a detention challenge. The court ordered Castañeda Florez to explain by November 2, 2020, why the case should remain in New York; the government could respond by November 9, 2020.
The detailed version
- Castaneda Florez v. Decker · No. 1:20-cv-08699
- Ronnie Abrams
- Oct. 26, 2020
Background
On October 19, 2020, Edison Castañeda Florez filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal law allowing a detained person to challenge the legality of detention. He alleged that his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement violated the Constitution in two ways: first, that prolonged detention without an individualized bond hearing violated procedural due process; and second, that the respondents’ deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs, including the risk COVID-19 posed because of his severe obesity and mental illness, violated substantive due process.
The petition stated that Castañeda Florez was detained at Bergen County Jail in Hackensack, New Jersey. The jail was described as a non-federal facility where he was held under a contract between the federal government and Bergen County. He argued that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York and that Thomas Decker, the director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s New York field office, was his immediate custodian and the proper respondent.
Venue and Custodian Issue
The court addressed the “immediate custodian rule,” which concerns whether a detention challenge should be brought against the official who directly holds the person and in the district where that person is confined. The opinion stated that neither the Supreme Court nor the Second Circuit had decided whether this rule applies to immigration detention cases. Judges in the Southern District of New York had reached different conclusions.
Judge Abrams noted that this court had transferred several similar cases to the district where the petitioner was confined. In those cases, the court determined that the proper custodian was the warden of the New Jersey detention facility, rather than the New York field office director who had legal authority over the petitioner’s immigration case.
Order
The court stated that it was inclined to transfer this matter to the District of New Jersey. It did not order a transfer at this stage. Instead, it ordered Castañeda Florez to demonstrate by November 2, 2020, why this case was distinguishable from the earlier cases cited by the court and why venue was proper in the Southern District of New York. The government was allowed to respond by November 9, 2020.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.