ADEMOLA v. ODDO

W.D. Pennsylvania

ADEMOLA v. ODDO

DecidedMarch 21, 2025

Docket3:25-cv-00026

StatusUnknown

This text of ADEMOLA v. ODDO (ADEMOLA v. ODDO) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ADEMOLA v. ODDO, (W.D. Pa. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BANKOLE QUADRI ADEMOLA, : Petitioner : v. : Case No. 3:25-cv-26-KAP LEONARD ODDO, WARDEN, : MOSHANNON VALLEY PROCESSING : CENTER, et al., : Respondents :

BANKOLE QUADRI ADEMOLA and : MALVN SEDEKI KAMARA, : Petitioners : v. : Case No. 3:25-cv-31-KAP LEONARD ODDO, WARDEN, : MOSHANNON VALLEY PROCESSING : CENTER, et al., : Respondents :

Memorandum Rule and Order

Bankole Ademola and Malvin Kamara allege that they are foreign nationals (of Nigeria and Liberia respectively) detained at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center while removal proceedings are pending. They seek bond hearings or release outright under German-Santos v. Warden Pike County Corr. Facility, 965 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir.2020). Petitioner Ademola submitted a petition dated January 23, 2025, that was received and docketed by the Clerk on January 28, 2025 at Case No. 3:25-cv-26-KAP. Petitioners Ademola and Kamara then submitted a petition dated January 14, 2025, that was received and docketed by the Clerk on January 28, 2025 at Case No. 3:25- cv-31-KAP. The matter at Case No. 3:25-cv-26-KAP was marked administratively closed because there was no filing fee or motion to proceed in forma pauperis. No further activity has occurred in that case. At Case No. 3:25-cv-31-KAP, both petitioners submitted a single motion to proceed in forma pauperis (on an AO-240 with only the first question answered and without an inmate account statement), and then Ademola paid the filing fee. In cases other than the probably unique facts presented in Hope v. Warden York County Prison, 972 F.3d 310, 319-20 (3d Cir.2020), because habeas corpus petitions seek liberty as to one conviction or reason for detention at a time, they 1 ordinarily are filed one petitioner per petition. Because Ademola and Kamara may be detained pursuant to different statutory provisions, may be at different stages in their removal proceedings, the circumstance that they both complain about conditions of their confinement at Moshannon Valley is not a basis for joining petitioners in one petition. To disentangle the petitions so that respondents can frame a response, I order the following: The Clerk shall copy the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF no. 1, without the exhibits) and the petition (ECF no. 3) at Case No. 3:25-cv-31-KAP, and file them at Case No. 3:25-cv-26-KAP. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in that case, Case No. 3:25-cv-26-KAP, as to Ademola. The Clerk will delete Kamara as a petitioner and that petition will proceed as Ademola v. Oddo Case No. 3:25-cv-26-KAP. In Case No. 3:25-cv-31-KAP, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted as to Kamara. The Clerk will delete Ademola as a petitioner and that petition will proceed as Kamara v. Oddo, Case No. 3:25-cv-31-KAP, with Kamara as the sole petitioner. The Marshal shall make service of the petition in Ademola v. Oddo, Case No. 3:25- cv-26-KAP and this Rule and Order on the respondents and the United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, costs to be borne by the United States. The Marshal shall make service of the petition in Kamara v. Oddo, Case No. 3:25- cv-31-KAP and this Rule and Order on the respondents and the United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, costs to be borne by the United States. Within sixty days of service, respondent, through the United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, shall file separate responses to the allegations in the petitions for the writ of habeas corpus, showing cause, if any, why the writ should not be granted as to Ademola in Ademola v. Oddo, Case No. 3:25-cv-26-KAP and as to Kamara in Kamara v. Oddo, Case No. 3:25-cv-31-KAP.

2 So that I know whether I will be writing opinions or recommendations or one of each, all parties need to return the consent form (enclosed if not already returned by pro se petitioners, on the court’s website (see below) for counsel) to the Clerk, not to me. https://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/sites/pawd/files/forms/Consent_to Proceed.pdf Wee DATE: March 20, 2025 Keith A. Pesto, United States Magistrate Judge Notice by U.S. Mail w/enclosure to: Bankole Quadri Ademola A-219-592-164 Moshannon Valley Processing Center 555 Geo Drive Philipsburg, PA 16866 Malvin Sedeki Kamara A-214-888-012 Moshannon Valley Processing Center 555 Geo Drive Philipsburg, PA 16866

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BANKOLE QUADRI ADEMOLA, : Petitioner : v. : Case No. 3:25-cv-26-KAP LEONARD ODDO, WARDEN, : MOSHANNON VALLEY PROCESSING : CENTER, et al., : Respondents :

BANKOLE QUADRI ADEMOLA and : MALVN SEDEKI KAMARA, : Petitioners : v. : Case No. 3:25-cv-31-KAP LEONARD ODDO, WARDEN, : MOSHANNON VALLEY PROCESSING : CENTER, et al., : Respondents :

Memorandum Rule and Order

Bankole Ademola and Malvin Kamara allege that they are foreign nationals (of Nigeria and Liberia respectively) detained at the Moshannon Valley Processing Center while removal proceedings are pending. They seek bond hearings or release outright under German-Santos v. Warden Pike County Corr. Facility, 965 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir.2020). Petitioner Ademola submitted a petition dated January 23, 2025, that was received and docketed by the Clerk on January 28, 2025 at Case No. 3:25-cv-26-KAP. Petitioners Ademola and Kamara then submitted a petition dated January 14, 2025, that was received and docketed by the Clerk on January 28, 2025 at Case No. 3:25- cv-31-KAP. The matter at Case No. 3:25-cv-26-KAP was marked administratively closed because there was no filing fee or motion to proceed in forma pauperis. No further activity has occurred in that case. At Case No. 3:25-cv-31-KAP, both petitioners submitted a single motion to proceed in forma pauperis (on an AO-240 with only the first question answered and without an inmate account statement), and then Ademola paid the filing fee. In cases other than the probably unique facts presented in Hope v. Warden York County Prison, 972 F.3d 310, 319-20 (3d Cir.2020), because habeas corpus petitions seek liberty as to one conviction or reason for detention at a time, they 1 ordinarily are filed one petitioner per petition. Because Ademola and Kamara may be detained pursuant to different statutory provisions, may be at different stages in their removal proceedings, the circumstance that they both complain about conditions of their confinement at Moshannon Valley is not a basis for joining petitioners in one petition. To disentangle the petitions so that respondents can frame a response, I order the following: The Clerk shall copy the motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF no. 1, without the exhibits) and the petition (ECF no. 3) at Case No. 3:25-cv-31-KAP, and file them at Case No. 3:25-cv-26-KAP. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted in that case, Case No. 3:25-cv-26-KAP, as to Ademola. The Clerk will delete Kamara as a petitioner and that petition will proceed as Ademola v. Oddo Case No. 3:25-cv-26-KAP. In Case No. 3:25-cv-31-KAP, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted as to Kamara. The Clerk will delete Ademola as a petitioner and that petition will proceed as Kamara v. Oddo, Case No. 3:25-cv-31-KAP, with Kamara as the sole petitioner. The Marshal shall make service of the petition in Ademola v. Oddo, Case No. 3:25- cv-26-KAP and this Rule and Order on the respondents and the United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, costs to be borne by the United States. The Marshal shall make service of the petition in Kamara v. Oddo, Case No. 3:25- cv-31-KAP and this Rule and Order on the respondents and the United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, costs to be borne by the United States. Within sixty days of service, respondent, through the United States Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania, shall file separate responses to the allegations in the petitions for the writ of habeas corpus, showing cause, if any, why the writ should not be granted as to Ademola in Ademola v. Oddo, Case No. 3:25-cv-26-KAP and as to Kamara in Kamara v. Oddo, Case No. 3:25-cv-31-KAP.

2 So that I know whether I will be writing opinions or recommendations or one of each, all parties need to return the consent form (enclosed if not already returned by pro se petitioners, on the court’s website (see below) for counsel) to the Clerk, not to me. https://www.pawd.uscourts.gov/sites/pawd/files/forms/Consent_to Proceed.pdf Wee DATE: March 20, 2025 Keith A. Pesto, United States Magistrate Judge Notice by U.S. Mail w/enclosure to: Bankole Quadri Ademola A-219-592-164 Moshannon Valley Processing Center 555 Geo Drive Philipsburg, PA 16866 Malvin Sedeki Kamara A-214-888-012 Moshannon Valley Processing Center 555 Geo Drive Philipsburg, PA 16866

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

ADEMOLA v. ODDO, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ademola-v-oddo-pawd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack