Ortiz v. U.S Dept. of Homeland Security
- Rearden
- 1:22-cv-10327
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Luis Ortiz v. U.S Dept. of Homeland Security, Judge Rearden denied the Department’s motion without prejudice for failing to give Ortiz required notice.
Luis Ortiz and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security; the ruling required the Department to provide notice before renewing its motion and gave Ortiz an opportunity to respond.
What happened
Luis Ortiz v. U.S Dept. of Homeland Security concerns the Department of Homeland Security’s attempt to dismiss Ortiz’s petition challenging his detention under a federal law allowing such petitions. Ortiz represented himself.
The Department attached materials outside the petition to its motion. Because that could turn the motion into a request for summary judgment, court rules required the Department to give Ortiz a specific notice explaining the process and consequences. The Department did not provide that notice.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden denied the motion without prejudice and terminated it from the docket. She allowed the Department to refile by April 15, 2024, required it to serve the notice, and set deadlines for Ortiz’s opposition and the Department’s reply. The order did not decide the merits of Ortiz’s petition.
The detailed version
- Ortiz v. U.S Dept. of Homeland Security · No. 1:22-cv-10327
- Rearden
- Mar. 31, 2024
Background
Luis Ortiz, proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and attached six exhibits.
Notice and Possible Conversion
The court explained that the Department’s reliance on materials outside the petition could implicate Rule 12(d). Under that rule, when outside materials are presented on certain motions to dismiss and the court does not exclude them, the motion may be treated as a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. Summary judgment is a procedure for deciding whether the evidence shows that a case can proceed or whether one side is entitled to judgment without a trial.
Because Ortiz was representing himself, the Department was required by Local Rule 12.1 to serve and file a notice explaining Rule 56 and the consequences of failing to submit evidence. The court found that the Department had not provided the required notice. The court stated that this procedural defect could not be excused given Ortiz’s status.
Ruling
The court denied the Department’s motion without prejudice. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion from the docket and mail Ortiz a copy of the order. The Department could refile its motion by April 15, 2024, but had to serve and file the Local Rule 12.1 notice. Ortiz could file an opposition, including materials for the court to consider, by May 13, 2024, and the Department could reply by May 20, 2024.
The order addressed the missing notice and the motion’s possible treatment as a summary-judgment motion. It did not decide whether Ortiz’s petition should succeed or whether the Department ultimately had a valid basis for dismissal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.