~ a
ss pMinulé TAeForm (06/97)

()

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge James B. Moran than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 03 C412 DATE 3/4/2003
CASE Rawinder Singh Pamma vs. John Ashcroft etc. et al.
TITLE
[in the folowing box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature
MOTION: of the motion being presented.}
IN:
Memorandum Opinion and Order
DOCKET ENTRY:
qd) Oo Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) a Brief in support of motion due
(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due.
(4) Qo Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) o Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor_ ss at_
(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for __at _
(7) Oo Trial[set for/re-set for] on __ at.
(8) a [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
COFRCP4(m) ClLocal Rule 41.1 CFRCP41(a)(1) O FRCP41(a)(2).
qo [Other docket entry] Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Petitioner’s application to proceed
in forma pauperis is granted.
qi) @ [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. number of notices
Notices mailed by judge’s staff. .
MAR - 3 ann
Notified counsel by telephone. dae docketed
vo | Docketing to mail notices. iS
Mail AO 450 form. iynog LOIMLSIG ‘Sn docketin yuly initials
Copy to judge/magistrate judge. yaa 5
courtroom Bish Hd f- uw eu Sue maledcte
WAH deputy’s
intake
me CaS

mailing deputy initials

central Clerk’s Office



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
RAWINDER SINGH PAMMA, )
Plaintiff, , i
vs. ; No. 03 C412 WAR ~ 5 2003
JOHN ASHCROFT, Attorney General, }
United States Department of Justice, et al., )
Defendant. }

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Petitioner Rawinder Singh Pamma filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus against
United States Attorney General John Ashcroft and the District Director of the Immigration
and Naturalization Service (INS) Brian Perryman seeking his release from custody. Along
with the petition he filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, For the following
reasons, petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) we may authorize petitioner to proceed in forma
pauperis if he demonstrates an inability to pay the required costs and fees. Petitioner is
presently incarcerated and has no steady source of income. As of January 13, 2002, his
account in the prison had a balance of $0.69. We find that petitioner has adequately
demonstrated his inability to pay the required court costs.

This is not the end of our inquiry. We must conduct an initial review of petitioner’s
claims and dismiss the complaint if we determine that the action is frivolous or malicious, it
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or petitioner seeks damages from a

defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); Alston v Debruy,


No, 03 C 412 Page2

13 F.3d 1036, 1039 (7 Cir. 1994). We review the claim using the same standard as a motion
to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Zimmerman y. Tribble, 266
F.3d 568, 571 (7" Cir. 2000).

Petitioner allegedly entered this country illegally and is subject to a final order of
removal from the United States issued on January 3, 2000. On April 11, 2002, petitioner was
allegedly taken into custody by the INS in order to facilitate his deportation to India,
Petitioner alleges that his detention for this period of time is illegal for three reasons. First,
he claims that 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), which allows detention of aliens subject to a deportation
order does not allow a detention of this length. He argues that the Supreme Court, in
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 (2001), determined that such a detention must be limited
to “a period reasonably necessary to bring about the alien’s removal.” Second, petitioner
argues that the statute is unconstitutional on its face as a violation of his right to due process.
Third, he claims that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to him. Plaintiff seeks his
release from custody and declaratory relief stating that respondents are acting beyond the
scope of their statutory power and in violation of the Constitution. Without reaching the
merits of the case, we find that petitioner adequately states a claim for relief.

For the foregoing reasons, petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is

granted.

Joaaes B

JAMES B. MORAN
ae Senior Judge, U. S, District Court

Mac, ¥ » 2003.