United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MALACHY E. MANNION United States District Judge
April 12, 2017, petitioner Miguel Gonzalez-Espinoza, a native
of Mexico, filed, through counsel, a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. (Doc. 1). The
petitioner is an alien who is charged as being removable
pursuant to 8 U.S.C. §1227(a)(2)(B)(i). On October 16,
2016, the petitioner was detained by ICE under 8 U.S.C.
§1226(c) and removal proceedings were initiated against
him. He was placed in custody at the York County Prison in
Pennsylvania and he has been continuously detained by ICE at
this prison under §1226(c). The petitioner claims that
he has suffered an unreasonably prolonged detention of about
8 months during the pendency of his removal proceedings and,
that he has not been afforded an individualized bond hearing
in violation of the due process protections required by the
United States Constitution. The petitioner requests that a
constitutionally adequate bond hearing be conducted by this
court, or in the alternative, by an Immigration Judge.
pending before the court is the June 7, 2017 report and
recommendation of Judge Mehalchick, (Doc. 8), recommending
that an Immigration Judge be directed to conduct an
individualized bond hearing for the petitioner and, therein,
granting in part the petitioner's habeas petition. In
their response to the habeas petition, (Doc. 4, p. 7), the
respondents state that “if this Court determines that
[an individualized] bond hearing is warranted, Respondents
will coordinate with the immigration court to schedule a bond
hearing for Petitioner before an immigration judge as
expeditiously as possible in accordance with applicable law
and regulation.” Based on the current case law, Judge
Mehalchick finds that the petitioner is entitled to an
individualized bond hearing before an Immigration Judge at
this time. On June 13, 2017, the respondents and the
petitioner filed notices indicating that they had no
objections to Judge Mehalchick's report. (Doc. 9, Doc.
no objection is made to a report and recommendation, the
court should, as a matter of good practice, “satisfy
itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record
in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b), advisory committee notes; see also Univac Dental
Co. v. Dentsply Int'l, Inc., 702 F.Supp.2d 465, 469
(2010) (citing Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874,
878 (3d Cir. 1987) (explaining judges should give some review
to every report and recommendation)). Nevertheless, whether
timely objections are made or not, the district court may
accept, not accept, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. 28
U.S.C. §636(b)(1); Local Rule 72.31.
court has reviewed Judge Mehalchick's report as well as
the applicable law and concurs with her recommendation. The
clear guidance of Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York County
Prison, 783 F.3d 469 (3d Cir. 2015) and Diop v.
ICE/Homeland Security, 656 F.3d 222 (3d Cir. 2011)
indicate that the petitioner is entitled to a bond hearing to
justify his continued detention during removal proceedings.
His continued detention will be justified only if it is
determined, on an individualized basis, that it is necessary
to achieving the goals of the immigration statute,
particularly, “ensuring participation in the removal
process and protecting the community from the danger he . .
. poses.” Chavez-Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 475. It
is the government's burden to show that the
petitioner's continued detention is necessary to fulfill
the above-referenced purposes of the detention statute.
Diop, 659 F.3d at 233.
the court will ADOPT Judge Mehalchick's report, (Doc. 8),
and will GRANT IN PART Gonzalez-Espinoza's habeas
petition, (Doc. 1), and order that an Immigration Judge
conduct an individualized bond hearing within 30 days.
IS HEREBY ORDERED, THAT:
report and recommendation of Judge Mehalchick, (Doc. 8), is
Petitioner Gonzalez-Espinoza's habeas petition, (Doc. 1),
is GRANTED IN PART to the extent that it seeks an
individualized bond hearing;
individualized bond hearing shall be conducted by an
Immigration Judge within thirty (30) days of the date of this
the bond hearing, the government shall bear the burden of
demonstrating that Gonzalez-Espinoza's continued
detention is still necessary to fulfill the purposes of
ensuring that he attends removal proceedings and that his
release will not pose a danger to the ...