M.S.G. v. Neal
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-09859
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In M.S.G. v. Neal, Judge Furman ordered counsel to attend a conference and address habeas treatment, jurisdiction, and venue.
M.S.G., the defendants, and their counsel; the order specifically imposes service requirements on M.S.G.’s counsel and appearance requirements on defense counsel.
What happened
In M.S.G. v. Neal, the court scheduled an in-person conference for November 15, 2023, and required counsel for all parties to attend unless the case was terminated or the court granted an adjournment.
The court directed counsel to confer and submit a joint letter addressing whether the conference was necessary, whether briefing should occur instead, and how the case should proceed. The letter and conference were also to address whether the complaint should be treated as a petition challenging confinement, and whether jurisdiction and venue were proper in the Southern District of New York because M.S.G. was in custody in Florida.
Judge Jesse M. Furman also ordered M.S.G.’s counsel to serve the complaint and related papers on the defendants by November 9, 2023, and directed defense counsel to enter appearances. The order set procedures for conference attendance, filings, and requests for extensions; it did not decide the merits of the case.
The detailed version
- M.S.G. v. Neal · No. 1:23-cv-09859
- Jesse Furman
- Nov. 8, 2023
Nature of the Order
This was a notice scheduling an initial in-person conference. The court did not rule on the underlying claims or enter a final judgment.
Issues to Be Addressed
The court ordered counsel for all parties to appear on November 15, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1105 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse in New York. Before the conference, counsel had to confer and submit a joint letter addressing whether the conference was necessary and how the case should proceed. If counsel believed briefing was more appropriate, they were to propose a briefing schedule.
The court specifically directed counsel to address whether the complaint should be treated as a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court also required counsel to address whether the Southern District of New York had jurisdiction and was the proper venue, noting that M.S.G. was currently in custody at Krome North Service Processing Center in Miami, Florida, and that the complaint did not allege that M.S.G. was in the Southern District when the case was filed. The order discussed cases concerning which person or officials may be the proper respondent in a challenge to immigration detention.
Other Directives
The court required all counsel to register as filing users on the court’s electronic filing system and familiarize themselves with the court’s individual rules. Unless the court granted permission otherwise, pretrial conferences had to be attended by the attorney who would serve as principal trial counsel.
If the case had already been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel did not need to appear if proof of termination was filed before the conference. Requests to extend a deadline or adjourn the conference had to be made by a letter-motion filed at least 48 hours beforehand and had to include the information specified in the order.
No later than November 9, 2023, M.S.G.’s counsel had to serve the defendants with the complaint, accompanying papers, and the order by overnight mail, then file proof of service. Defense counsel had to promptly file notices of appearance.
Disposition and Effect
The court issued procedural directions and scheduled further proceedings. It did not decide whether the complaint was a petition under Section 2241, whether jurisdiction or venue was proper, or whether M.S.G. was entitled to relief. Judge Jesse M. Furman signed the order on November 8, 2023.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.