United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MICHAEL D. R., Petitioner,
MICHAEL VAZQUEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
pending before the Court is Petitioner's April 8, 2019
habeas corpus petition challenging his prolonged immigration
detention pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (at ECF No. 1;
hereinafter, the “Petition”), as well as and his
April 23, 2019 emergency application which likewise requests
that the Court order his immediate release from custody. (ECF
No. 9.) For the reasons detailed below, his Petition is
dismissed without prejudice and the emergent relief he
requests is denied.
is an immigration detainee who has been held in the Essex
County Correctional Facility (“ECCF”), located in
Newark, New Jersey, by United States Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) since June 25, 2018.
(See, e.g., ECF No. 1.) Over the last
several months, he has submitted myriad applications in his
earlier-initiated § 2241 habeas matter, Michael D.
R. v. Green, 2:18-cv-15063 (JMV) (the “First
Habeas Matter”), requesting that this Court order his
immediate release from ICE custody. The Court, in a series of
decisions, has already denied all such
applications. On April 12, 2019, the Court issued its
final opinion in the First Habeas Matter. (See First
Habeas Matter at ECF No. 45.) That decision details the
factual and legal considerations supporting denial of all of
Petitioner's then-pending applications for emergent
relief and dismissal of his habeas petition in the First
Habeas Matter. (See id.)
April 8, 2019, Petitioner initiated the present habeas action
in the Southern District of New York (“Southern
District”) via the filing of a separate emergency
habeas petition. (ECF No. 1.) On April 23, 2019, Petitioner
submitted an additional emergency application for immediate
release to the Southern District. (ECF No. 9.) On April 29,
2019, Petitioner's newly-initiated habeas matter was
formally transferred to the District of New Jersey. (ECF No.
10.) Petitioner - by way of his current habeas filings - is,
yet again, raising the same arguments and claims that the
undersigned has considered and rejected on several occasions,
including as recently as April 12, 2019.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases (the
“Habeas Rules”), applicable to this § 2241
proceeding under Habeas Rule 1(b), this Court is presently
required to examine the Petition to determine whether it
should be dismissed as plainly unmeritorious. Insomuch as
Petitioner's current habeas filings are more
appropriately construed as a motion for reconsideration of
the Court's April 12, 2019 final opinion and order in the
First Habeas Matter, those filings are instead governed by
Local Civil Rule 7.1(i). Such a motion is viable due to (1)
an intervening change in the controlling law, (2) the
availability of new evidence not previously available, or (3)
the need to correct a clear error of law or prevent manifest
injustice. Carmichael v. Everson, No. 03-4787, 2004
WL 1587894, at *1 (D.N.J. May 21, 2004) (citations omitted).
Relief under this rule is inappropriate when a party merely
disagrees with a court's ruling or when a party simply
wishes to re-argue or re-hash its original motion. Sch.
Specialty, Inc. v. Ferrentino, No. 14-4507, 2015 WL
4602995, *2-3 (D.N.J. July 30, 2015); see also Florham
Park Chevron, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., 680 F.Supp. 159,
162 (D.N.J. 1988).
Court concludes that summary dismissal of the present habeas
matter is entirely appropriate under the foregoing standards.
Petitioner's present Petition and related application for
emergency relief rely on the same legal arguments and claims
that the Court, just over three weeks ago, rejected when it
denied habeas relief to Petitioner and dismissed the First
Habeas Matter. None of the information detailed in
Petitioner's current habeas filings suggests to this
Court that his circumstances have materially changed since
that time such that he is now “in custody in violation
of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Indeed,
Petitioner appears to be seeking habeas relief based on the
same claims and same arguments that the Court already
considered and rejected. The Court will not countenance
Petitioner's present efforts to achieve a different
result by reasserting those same, unsuccessful claims in a
foregoing reasons, Petitioner's habeas petition is
dismissed without prejudice as plainly unmeritorious at this
time. See Habeas Rule 4. The emergent relief he
seeks therein is likewise denied. An accompanying Order
 A detailed summary of Petitioner's
applications and the Court's resulting decisions in the
First Habeas Matter is set forth in the Court's April 12,
2019 opinion. (See ...