Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Raynald Estime v. Eric Holder

April 18, 2011

RAYNALD ESTIME, PETITIONER,
v.
ERIC HOLDER, JR., ET AL., RESPONDENTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Linares, District Judge:

NOT FOR PUBLICATION CLOSED

OPINION

On April 5, 2011, Petitioner Raynald Estime ("Petitioner"), a native of Haiti, who entered the United States on October 29, 1999, filed the instant Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition"), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention by the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS")*fn1 at the Essex County Correctional Center. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the Petition.

BACKGROUND

According to the Petition, on December 15, 2009, Petitioner -a Haitian citizen having permanent residency in the United States -- was convicted in the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Essex County, on three charges constituting removable offenses. See Docket Entry No. 1, at 5.*fn2 Petitioner was ordered removed on November 17, 2010. The accepts as true Petitioner's assertion that he waived his right to appeal that determination. See id.

Citing nothing but the January 12, 2010 earthquake which devastated Haiti, Petitioner now asserts that: (a) there is no significant likelihood of his removal to Haiti in the reasonably foreseeable future; and, therefore, (b) Petitioner must be deemed illegally confined. See Docket Entries Nos. 1 and 1-1.

JURISDICTION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), habeas jurisdiction "shall not extend to a prisoner unless . . . he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction under § 2241(c)(3) if two requirements are satisfied:

(1) the petitioner is "in custody,"; and (2) the custody could be "in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see also Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490 (1989). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the instant Petition under § 2241 because Petitioner is detained within its jurisdiction and he asserts that his detention is not statutorily authorized and violates his constitutional rights.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pro se pleading is held to less stringent standards than more formal pleadings drafted by lawyers. See Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). A pro se habeas petition and any supporting submissions must be construed liberally and with a measure of tolerance. See Royce v. Hahn, 151 F.3d 116, 118 (3d Cir. 1998); Lewis v. Attorney General, 878 F.2d 714, 721-22 (3d Cir. 1989); United States v. Brierley, 414 F.2d 552, 555 (3d Cir. 1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 912 (1970). DISCUSSION

I. APPLICABLE LAW

A. Removal Period and Its Triggering Events

Section 1231(a)(1)(A) provides that the government has a 90-day "removal period" to remove an alien ordered removed from the United States. Detention during the removal period under Section 1231(a)(1)(A) is mandatory and, in addition, ยง 1231(a)(1)(C) provides that the removal period shall be extended, and the alien may remain in detention during such extended period, if the alien ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.