UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
May 12, 2009
ERROL BARRINGTON SCARLETT, A35-899-292 PETITIONER,
THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge
DECISION AND ORDER
This matter was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. Richard J. Arcara, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), for all pretrial matters and to hear and report upon dispositive motions. Dkt. #10.
Currently before the Court is a motion by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation and the New York Civil Liberties Union for leave to file a brief of amici curiae in support of the petition for writ of habeas corpus. Dkt. #12. Proposed amici submit that they have significant expertise in the area of immigration detention and a longstanding interest in enforcing constitutional and statutory constraints on the federal government's power to subject non-citizens to administrative immigration detention. Dkt. #12. The petitioner and the respondents consent to the filing of the brief. Dkt. #12.
"A district court has broad discretion to grant or deny an appearance as amicus curiae in a given case." Citizens Against Casino Gambling in Erie County v. County of Erie, 471 F.Supp.2d 295, 311 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). "The usual rationale for amicus curiae submissions is that they are of aid to the court and offer insights not available from the parties." United States v. El-Gabrowny, 844 F. Supp. 955, 957 n.1 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). As Judge Posner explained: An amicus brief should normally be allowed when a party is not represented competently or is not represented at all, when the amicus has an interest in some other case that may be affected by the decision in the present case (though not enough affected to entitle the amicus to intervene and become a party in the present case), or when the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide. Otherwise, leave to file an amicus curiae brief should be denied.
Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).
In the instant case, petitioner is appearing pro se. His petition involves complex issues of constitutional law and statutory interpretation. Amici have significant experience representing individuals in similar circumstances and have prepared an insightful analysis of the issues before the Court. As a result, the motion for leave to file a brief of amici curiae in support of the petition for writ of habeas corpus (Dkt. #12), is GRANTED.
Buffalo, New York
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.