Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-00727/USCOURTS-cand-4_18-cv-00727-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICARDO MERCADO-GUILLEN,

Petitioner,

v.

KIRSTJEN NIELSEN, et al.,

Respondents.

Case No. 18-cv-00727-HSG 

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Re: Dkt. No. 1

A federal district court is authorized to grant a writ of habeas corpus when a petitioner is 

“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241(c)(3).

Petitioner Ricardo Mercado-Guillen, who is in the custody of the Department of 

Homeland Security, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 

See Dkt. No. 1. He alleges that he has been detained at the West County Detention Facility in 

Richmond, California for over six months without a bond hearing before an immigration judge. 

Petitioner alleges his continued detention violates 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and his Fifth Amendment right 

to due process. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). 

He names six individuals as Respondents: Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security Kirstjen Nielsen; Acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

Thomas D. Homan; Executive Associate Director of Enforcement and Removal Operations for 

U.S. Immigration and Customers Enforcement Matthew Albence; Field Office Director of U.S. 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement for San Francisco David Jennings; Contra Costa County 

Case 4:18-cv-00727-HSG Document 12 Filed 02/06/18 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Sherriff David O. Livingston; and U.S. Attorney General Jefferson Sessions.

1

 See Dkt. No. 1 

¶¶ 6–12.

Having considered the pleadings and documents in this matter, and good cause having 

been shown by Petitioner, the Court ORDERS Respondents to Show Cause: 

1. By February 9, 2018, Respondents shall respond by answering the allegations and 

showing cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue, or by filing a motion to dismiss on 

procedural grounds; 

2. Petitioner’s traverse, opposition, or statement of non-opposition shall be filed by 

February 16, 2018; and 

3. Any reply by Respondents shall be filed by February 23, 2018. 

The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order, the petition, and all attachments 

thereto, on Respondents and shall serve copies of these documents to the U.S. Attorney for the 

Northern District of California.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

 

1 Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the proper respondent for a habeas corpus petition is the person “with 

the ability to produce the prisoner’s body before the habeas court.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 

426, 435 (2004). The “default rule” is that the “warden of the facility where the prisoner is being 

held” is the proper respondent where the petitioner is challenging present physical confinement, 

“not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official.” Id. Petitioner alleges 

David O. Livingston, the Sheriff-Coroner of Contra Costa County, is in charge of the West County 

Detention Facility where Petitioner is being held. See Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 12.

2/6/2018

Case 4:18-cv-00727-HSG Document 12 Filed 02/06/18 Page 2 of 2