United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART JUDGE DONOHUE'S R&R
AND DENYING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR CONDITIONAL
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MATTER comes before the Court on Petitioner's Objections
to the portion of the Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) of the Honorable James P. Donohue,
United States Magistrate Judge, in which Judge Donohue has
recommended the denial of Petitioner's release from
immigration detention. Dkts. #64 at 34-44 and #66. Having
reviewed such Objections, the government's response
thereto, and the remaining record, the Court now ADOPTS that
portion of Judge Donohue's R&R for the reasons set
forth by Judge Donohue and for the additional reasons
Petitioner argued before Judge Donohue that his case is
extraordinary and involves special circumstances warranting
relief, so too does he raise such arguments before this Court
in his Objections. Dkt. #66. He submits that Judge
Donohue's conclusion that he is not entitled to
conditional release is clearly erroneous. Dkt. #66 at 12.
This Court disagrees.
initial matter, the Court notes that Petitioner must take
some responsibility for the position he finds himself as of
this date. Indeed, he has placed himself in the tenuous
position of arguing that his arrest and detention have
violated his constitutional rights, while also asserting that
he is not challenging the revocation of his DACA status or
“anything that has to do with the removal proceedings
themselves.” Dkt. #62 at 52:4-7. That position
ultimately leads this Court to agree with Judge Donohue that
Petitioner is not entitled to release at this stage of the
is now being held in immigration detention after U.S.
Department of Homeland Security issued a Notice to Appear
(“NTA”) in removal proceedings and a Notice of
Custody Determination that he is to be held without bond.
Dkt. #32, Exs. 1 and 4. By Petitioner's own admission, he
is not challenging “anything that has to do with the
removal proceedings themselves.” Thus, the Court agrees
with the government, that even if the Court were to find this
case presents extraordinary circumstance and/or that
Petitioner is highly likely to succeed on the merits, he is
not entitled to release. See Dkt. #68 at 2-4. DHS
has the statutory discretion to detain aliens during the
pendency of their removal proceedings. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1226(a). Further, as this Court has previously
recognized, the remedy for an unlawful arrest in violation of
the Fourth Amendment is suppression of evidence. See INS
v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1040-41 (1984);
United States v. Garcia-Beltran, 443 F.3d 1126,
1131-32 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Martinez-Medina v.
Holder, 673 F.3d 1029, 1033-34 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting
that exclusionary rule applies in civil removal proceedings
only when the Fourth Amendment violation is egregious).
Indeed, the government recognizes that “an unlawful
arrest can have important consequences.” Dkt. #68 at 4.
Similarly, the United States Supreme Court has explained:
Irregularities on the part of the Government official prior
to, or in connection with, the arrest would not necessarily
invalidate later proceedings in all respects conformable to
law. “A writ of habeas corpus is not like an action to
recover damages for an unlawful arrest or commitment, but its
object is to ascertain whether the prisoner can lawfully be
detained in custody; and if sufficient ground for his
detention by the government is shown, he is not to be
discharged for defects in the original arrest or
United States ex rel. Bilokumsky v. Tod, 263 U.S.
149, 158, 44 S.Ct. 54, 57 (1923) (citations omitted).
Likewise, the Supreme Court has noted that “[t]he
‘body' or identity of a defendant or respondent in
a criminal or civil proceeding is never itself suppressible
as a fruit of an unlawful arrest, even if it is conceded that
an unlawful arrest, search, or interrogation occurred.”
INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1039, 104 S.Ct.
3479, 3483-84 (1984).
Court acknowledges the unusual circumstances of this case and
that many questions remain regarding the appropriateness of
the government's conduct. However, while the Court is
sympathetic to the situation in which the Plaintiff finds
himself, it can only conclude that he is not entitled to
immediate release under the posture of this case.
Accordingly, should petitioner desire release from his
current detention, his avenue for seeking such release should
occur in the context of his removal proceedings, which by his
own admission, are not being challenged here.
of these reasons, the Court ADOPTS that portion of Judge
Donohue's R&R pertaining to Petitioner's motion
for conditional release (Dkt. #45) and DENIES the motion.
Should Petitioner desire a bond redetermination hearing, the
Court once again directs the government to schedule such a
hearing no later than one week from the date of
Court shall review Judge Donohue's R&R with respect
to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss pursuant to the schedule
previously set for any ...