Guerrero Mariano v. Decker
- John Cronan
- 1:21-cv-04440
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Guerrero Mariano v. Decker, Judge Cronan ordered location information and sought consent to transfer after identifying a possible jurisdiction problem.
Keisy Guerrero Mariano, his counsel, and the respondents in his detention challenge were affected by the information, service, appearance, potential-transfer, and conference directives.
What happened
In Guerrero Mariano v. Decker, Keisy Guerrero Mariano filed a petition challenging his detention. The petition said he was being held at Hudson County Jail in New Jersey the day before filing, but it did not allege that he was in the Southern District of New York when he filed.
The court said it had previously held that it lacked jurisdiction over a detention challenge when the petitioner was not in the district at filing, although judges in the district disagreed about that issue. The court did not decide the jurisdiction question or the petition’s underlying claims in this order.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the petitioner to provide updated information about his location when the petition was filed and to state whether he consented to transferring the case to the District of New Jersey. If he did not consent, the court scheduled a telephone conference. The order also directed service of the petition and order on the respondents and instructed respondents’ counsel to appear.
The detailed version
- Guerrero Mariano v. Decker · No. 1:21-cv-04440
- John Cronan
- May 20, 2021
Background
On May 18, 2021, Keisy Guerrero Mariano filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a legal procedure used to challenge detention. The petition stated that, as of May 17, 2021, Mariano was being held at Hudson County Jail in Kearny, New Jersey. The petition suggested that counsel did not know Mariano’s location, and it did not allege that Mariano was in the Southern District of New York when the petition was filed.
Jurisdiction concern
The court stated that judges in the Southern District of New York were divided over whether the district has jurisdiction when a person challenging detention pending removal proceedings was not physically present in the district when the petition was filed. Judge Cronan noted that he had previously held that jurisdiction does not lie in that situation. The court did not resolve the issue in this order and did not decide the merits of Mariano’s detention challenge.
Order
Because the issues were time-sensitive, the court ordered Mariano to file a letter by May 24, 2021, providing updated information about his location at the time of filing and stating whether he consented to immediate transfer of the case to the District of New Jersey. If Mariano did not consent, the court scheduled a telephone conference for May 27, 2021. The court also directed Mariano’s counsel to serve the respondents with the petition, accompanying papers, and order by overnight mail by May 21, 2021, and to file proof of service. Respondents’ counsel was directed to promptly file notices of appearance. The order did not transfer, dismiss, or otherwise finally resolve the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.