Singh v. Decker

Background

Gurpreet Singh filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a law allowing a person to challenge unlawful custody in federal court. Singh challenged his continued detention while removal proceedings were pending and primarily sought immediate release or a bond hearing before an immigration judge. At the time he filed the petition, he was detained at the Bergen County Jail in Hackensack, New Jersey.

Singh had been admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident and later became a naturalized citizen. After criminal proceedings, his citizenship was revoked. Immigration officials then charged him with being removable and detained him pending removal proceedings. The opinion states that those proceedings remained ongoing and that the Board of Immigration Appeals had made the removal order administratively final. Singh had also petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for review of a Board decision, and that petition was pending.

Singh alleged that his detention violated the Fourth, Fifth, and Eighth Amendments. He also alleged that he had received inadequate medical treatment at the jail. The respondents were Thomas Decker, Michael M. Russo, Chad Wolf, and William Barr. After the court appointed counsel for Singh, counsel opposed the respondents’ motion to dismiss or transfer.

Jurisdiction and transfer

The court first addressed jurisdiction—the court’s legal authority to hear the case—before considering the merits of Singh’s detention claims. The court treated the petition as a “core” custody challenge because Singh sought release from physical detention or a bond hearing that could lead to release.

Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Rumsfeld v. Padilla, the court held that the proper respondent in a challenge to present physical confinement is generally the person with immediate physical custody of the petitioner. The court concluded that Michael Russo, the warden of the Bergen County Jail, had day-to-day physical control over Singh. The court rejected Singh’s argument that Thomas Decker, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement official in New York, was the proper respondent because federal officials exercised legal control over the detention.

The court also held that the immediate-custodian rule applied to this immigration detention case. Because Singh was detained in New Jersey when he filed the petition, the court concluded that the case should have been brought in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Disposition

The court found that it lacked jurisdiction over the case and determined that transfer, rather than dismissal, was in the best interest of justice under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The court granted the respondents’ motion to transfer the case. It directed the clerk to terminate all pending motions and transfer the case to the District of New Jersey. The court also waived the seven-day waiting period under the local rule so the transfer could occur promptly.

The opinion did not decide whether Singh’s detention violated the Constitution, whether he was entitled to release, or whether he was entitled to a bond hearing.