Marvin Vernardes v. DHS ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARVIN VERNARDES, Case No.: 20-CV-220 JLS (AHG) 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION 13 v. 14 DHS, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 On October 23, 2019, in the Central District of California, Petitioner Marvin 18 Vernardes filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking to be 19 released from immigration custody. “Petition,” ECF No. 1. The United States of America 20 filed an Opposition to the Petition on January 13, 2020. “Opp’n,” ECF No. 10. Because 21 Petitioner was at the time confined at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in San Diego, 22 California, the Petition was transferred to this Court on February 4, 2020. ECF No. 13. 23 After reviewing the Parties’ arguments and the law, the Court DENIES the Petition. 24 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Honduras. Opp’n at 1. In 2014, while 25 incarcerated in Salt Lake City, Utah, US Marshalls determined that Petitioner was in the 26 United States without valid immigration documents. Id. at 1–2. After being taken into 27 ICE custody, Petitioner was removed to Honduras in April 2018. In August 2018, 28 Petitioner was detained in the United States for illegal reentry. Id. at 2. On July 15, 2019, 1 || Petitioner was taken into ICE custody. Jd. During both his 2018 and current detention, 2 || Petitioner provided different names and dates of birth. Jd. at 3. Three months after being 3 ||taken into ICE custody, Petitioner filed his Petition on the grounds of “prolonged and 4 illegal detention.” Petition at 3. 5 Respondents contend the Petition must be denied because the length of detention is 6 || presumptively constitutional. Opp’n at 2. The Court must agree. Under Zadvydas y. 7 || Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), detentions of less than six months are presumptively 8 ||constitutional. At the time the Petition was filed, Petitioner had been detained for only 9 ||three months. And Petitioner has not shown there is “reason to believe that there is no 10 || significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Jd. at 701. Indeed, 11 Respondents note, any delay in Petitioner’s removal is in part a result of Petitioner’s use 12 multiple names and dates of birth. Opp’n at 2 (citing Lema v. INS, 341 F.3d 853, 856 13 || (9th Cir. 2003)). In sum, Petitioner has not shown his detention violates any statutes or 14 || due process. His Writ of Habeas Corpus is therefore DENIED. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 Dated: August 26, 2020 . tt 17 jen Janis L. Sammartino 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28