Ragbir v. Homan
- P. Castel
- 1:18-cv-01159
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Ragbir v. Homan, Judge Castel granted a letter motion to the extent indicated and ordered the government to address a possible mootness hearing.
The plaintiffs, the government, and the Court’s handling of the challenge to execution of the removal order were affected. The government had to state within 14 days whether it consented to a hearing and, if not, explain why.
What happened
Ragbir v. Homan concerns a challenge to the execution of a removal order after the Second Circuit sent the case back for this Court to consider whether the challenge remained a live dispute. The government asked for additional time to file a motion, and the parties proposed a schedule that would extend briefing for about five months.
The Court adopted the proposed schedule but said the government could move more quickly on the mootness issue. Mootness means that later events may have ended the dispute, leaving no live controversy for the court to decide.
Judge Castel ordered the government to say within 14 days whether it agreed to a hearing on the removal-order challenge and, if not, why not. The Court granted the letter motion to the extent indicated; it did not decide the mootness question in this order.
The detailed version
- Ragbir v. Homan · No. 1:18-cv-01159
- P. Castel
- Sept. 22, 2021
Background
The opinion describes earlier litigation involving the plaintiff’s federal conviction, imprisonment sentence, final removal order, and related challenges. The Court’s earlier memorandum and order was vacated by the Second Circuit. The Supreme Court later granted review and sent the matter back to the Second Circuit for further consideration in light of another Supreme Court decision.
While the case was pending in the Second Circuit, the government argued that the appeal was moot because any retaliatory taint affecting the original enforcement decision had dissipated. The Second Circuit sent the case back to this Court to decide whether the challenge to executing the removal order still presented a live case or controversy and whether the government could execute that order. The Second Circuit stated that mootness might require additional fact-finding.
Requests and scheduling
Four days after the Second Circuit’s mandate issued, the Court gave the government 30 days to file a motion. On September 21, 2021, the government requested an extension until November 8. The parties also requested 45 days for the opposing party to respond, with a reply due on January 13, 2022. The Court observed that briefing would therefore not be complete until approximately five months after the mandate.
The Court allowed the government to move, or not move, on any claim in the complaint and on any ground, using the proposed schedule that the Court adopted. The government could also expedite proceedings concerning the asserted mootness of the challenge to executing the removal order.
Ruling
The Court required the government, within 14 days, to advise whether it consented to a hearing on the challenge to execution of the removal order. If it did not consent, the government had to explain why. The Court noted that consenting to a hearing immediately could avoid delay from extended briefing, although a hearing would still be necessary later if the Court found that mootness involved disputed facts requiring additional fact-finding.
The order states: “Letter motion (Doc 128) is GRANTED to the extent indicated.” The Court did not resolve whether the challenge was moot and did not decide the underlying claims in this order.
Classification
This is a procedural order because it addressed briefing, scheduling, and the possible need for a hearing on mootness without deciding the merits of the claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.