Rivera-Medrano v. US Department of Homeland Security, Acting Secretary et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Karen Elizabeth Rivera-Medrano
v. 	Case No. 20-cv-0194-JD
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Acting Secretary Chad Wolf; U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Enforcement and Removal Operations,
Acting Field Office Director Marcos
Charles; Strafford County Department
of Corrections Superintendent
Christopher Brackett
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Before the court are three post-judgment motions filed by
petitioner, Karen Elizabeth Rivera-Medrano:
 	Motion to enforce the judgment (Doc. No. 24);
 	Emergency motion (Doc. No. 25), seeking to stay the Board
of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) decision revoking
petitioner’s release from Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) detention; and
 	Assented-to motion (Doc. No. 27), asking this court to
issue the proposed order (Doc. No. 27-1) that sets forth
the terms upon which petitioner has agreed to withdraw the
motion to enforce the judgment (Doc. No. 24) and the motion
to stay (Doc. No. 25).
Background
Petitioner filed this action asserting that her continued
ICE detention without a bond hearing before an immigration judge
violated her federal rights. 	This court granted her petition,
declaring that petitioner was entitled to a bond hearing before
an immigration judge, to be held as soon as practicable, and
judgment entered. 	See Apr. 6, 2020 Order (Doc. No. 15); July
Case 1:20-cv-00194-JD Document 28 Filed 12/16/20 Page 1 of 4

2
20, 2020 Order (Doc. No. 22); July 21, 2020 J. (Doc. No. 23).
The federal respondents in this case filed a notice of
appeal of the judgment, and that appeal remains pending in the
First Circuit. 	See Rivera-Medrano v. Wolf, No. 20-1573 (1st
Cir. filed June 16, 2020). 	Also pending in the First Circuit is
petitioner’s appeal of an adverse ruling of the BIA in her
immigration matter. 	See Rivera-Medrano v. Barr, No. 20-1667
(1st Cir. filed July 6, 2020).
The motion (Doc. No. 24) to enforce the judgment filed in
this case asserts that after judgment entered in this action,
the BIA issued an order reversing the decision of the
immigration judge that had released petitioner from ICE
detention. 	Petitioner’s motion to enforce the judgment asks
this court either to vacate that BIA ruling, or to hold its own
detention hearing for petitioner. 	The emergency motion to stay
(Doc. No. 25) asks this court to stay the effect of that BIA
order, pending this court’s disposition of petitioner’s motion
to enforce the judgment. 	And the assented-to motion (Doc. No.
27) asks this court to enter the terms of the parties’
stipulated resolution of those two post-judgment motions as a
court order.
Discussion
There are several grounds for denying all of the post-
judgment motions, without prejudice, at this time. 	In general,
an appeal divests the district court of jurisdiction over
Case 1:20-cv-00194-JD Document 28 Filed 12/16/20 Page 2 of 4

3
matters relating to the judgment on appeal. 	While that general
rule does not preclude a district court from enforcing a
judgment on appeal that has not been stayed, see Ricci v. Okin,
535 F. Supp. 2d 229, 230 & n.4 (D. Mass. 2008), there is a
substantial question whether issuing an order on these post-
judgment motions – potentially staying a BIA order, holding a
detention hearing, and issuing an order that embodies the terms
of the negotiated resolution of two pending post-judgment
motions - could extend this court’s jurisdiction into matters
that interfere with the First Circuit’s jurisdiction in Rivera-
Medrano v. Wolf, No. 20-1573 (1st Cir.).
Furthermore, it appears that the parties have already
agreed to the proposed order’s terms, see Doc. No. 27-1, which
define the circumstances upon which petitioner would voluntarily
withdraw both her motion to enforce the judgment and her
emergency motion to stay. 	The parties’ stipulation in that
regard suggests that a ruling on the merits of any of the post-
judgment motions, including the issuance of the proposed order
attached to the assented-to motion, would be supererogatory or
advisory. 	Accordingly, the district judge should deny the
relief requested in all three of the pending post-judgment
motions (Doc. Nos. 24, 25, 27), without addressing the merits of
those motions, and without prejudice to the petitioner’s ability
to refile the same or similar motions after the First Circuit
appeal in this action is concluded.
Case 1:20-cv-00194-JD Document 28 Filed 12/16/20 Page 3 of 4

4
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the district judge should deny:
(1) the motion to stay (Doc. No. 25), (2) the motion to enforce
the judgment (Doc. No. 24), and (3) the assented-to motion to
issue the proposed order (Doc. No. 27), without prejudice to any
party’s ability to refile the same or similar motions in this
case after the appeal in Rivera-Medrano v. Wolf, No. 20-1573
(1st Cir.), is completed. 	Any objections to this Report and
Recommendation must be filed within fourteen days of receipt of
this notice. 	See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 	The fourteen-day
period may be extended upon motion. 	Failure to file objections
within the specified time waives the right to appeal the
district court’s order. 	See Santos-Santos v. Torres-Centeno,
842 F.3d 163, 168 (1st Cir. 2016).
__________________________
Andrea K. Johnstone
United States Magistrate Judge
December 16, 2020
cc: 	Gilles R. Bissonnette, Esq.
SangYeob Kim, Esq.
Henry R. Klementowicz, Esq.
Terry L. Ollila, Esq.
Thomas P. Velardi, Esq.
Case 1:20-cv-00194-JD Document 28 Filed 12/16/20 Page 4 of 4