Ghotra v. Nielsen et al, No. 4:2018cv01494 - Document 9 (N.D. Ala. 2019)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION ADOPTING and ACCEPTING the 8 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 8/30/2019. (JLC)

Download PDF
Ghotra v. Nielsen et al Doc. 9 FILED 2019 Aug-30 PM 05:11 U.S. DISTRICT COURT N.D. OF ALABAMA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA MIDDLE DIVISION KULVINDER SINGH GHOTRA, Petitioner, v. SCOTT HASSELL, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 4:18-cv-1494-MHH-JEO MEMORANDUM OPINION On July 3, 2019, the magistrate judge entered a report recommending this action be dismissed without prejudice because Mr. Ghotra’s request for relief is premature. (Doc. 8). No party has objected to the recommendation. A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain error factual findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 (11th Cir. 1988); Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006). The Court adopts accepts the magistrate judge’s recommendation and finds that Mr. Ghotra’s habeas petition in premature. Mr. Ghotra’s lengthy efforts to Dockets.Justia.com challenge his removal have tolled the presumptive six-month period for removal. Akinwale v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050, 1052 n.4 (11th Cir. 2002). 1 The Court will enter a separate dismissal order. DONE this 30th day of August, 2019. _________________________________ MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1 The magistrate judge, relying on district court opinions, stated that Mr. Ghotra’s efforts to obtain relief from his removal order reset, rather than tolled, the presumptive six-month period for removal. (Doc. 8, pp. 8-9). The undersigned will wait for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to clarify the extent to which the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ forbearance policy affects the binding precedent in Akinwale. Because under Akinwale, the presumptive six-month period for removal had not run when Mr. Ghotra filed his petition in this action, the result is the same -- Mr. Ghotra’s petition was premature. (See Doc. 8, pp. 2-4 for the details of Mr. Ghotra’s pre-petition efforts to avoid removal). 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.