Cheikh Diaw v. Leonard Oddo and Todd Lyons

• Court: District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: November 6, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00131
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CHEIKH DIAW, ) Petitioner, VS. Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-131 ) Judge Stephanie L. Haines LEONARD ODDO and TODD LYONS, ) Magistrate Judge Christopher B. Brown Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER Presently before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 filed pro se by Cheikh Diaw (“Petitioner”) (ECF No. 11). Petitioner is detained at Moshannon Valley Detention Center and claims that his detention is unconstitutionally prolonged. He seeks immediate release from custody and an order preventing Immigration and Customs Enforcement from re-detaining him in the future. This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Christopher B. Brown for proceedings in accordance with the Federal Magistrates Act, 28 U.S. C. § 636, and Local Civil Rule 72.D. On October 15, 2025, Magistrate Judge Brown filed a Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 60) recommending that the Petition (ECF No. 11) be granted in part and denied in part. Judge Brown recommended that the Petition be granted to the extent Petitioner is requesting to be released from custody, subject to and in accordance with the conditions of his preexisting Order of Supervision. It was further recommended that the Petition be denied without prejudice to the extent that Petitioner is seeking an injunction preventing his re-detention in the future. Respondents were informed that they could file objections to the Report and Recommendation by October 30, 2025, and Petitioner’s due date for Objections was November 3, 2025. See 28 U.S.C.§

636 (b)(1)(B) and (C) and Local Civil Rule 72.D.2. Neither the Government nor Petitioner filed objections, and the time to do so has expired. Upon review of the record and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 60) under the applicable “reasoned consideration” standard, see EEOC v. City of Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 100 (3d Cir. 2017) (standard of review when no timely and specific objections are filed), and pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.D.2, the Court will accept Magistrate Judge Brown’s conclusions that: (1) Petitioner is entitled to release under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) and (2) it is appropriate to deny the Petition without prejudice to the extent that Petitioner seeks an injunction preventing his re-detention in the future. Indeed, Petitioner has been detained since April 4, 2025, and thus has been detained beyond the presumptively reasonable time period under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (prescribing the presumptively reasonable time period as six months). Furthermore, the Court finds that, in his instant Motion, Petitioner has carried his burden of proffering “good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future[.]” /d. Finally, especially in light of the fact that they have not objected to Magistrate Judge Brown’s Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that Respondents have failed to “respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” Jd. Further, the Petition will be denied without prejudice to the extent that Petitioner seeks an injunction preventing his re-detention in the future. The finding and order to grant Petitioner release from ICE custody moots Petitioner’s other motions as they all sought his release from ICE custody. Accordingly, the following order is entered:

ORDER AND NOW, this 6" day of November, 2025, IT IS ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 11) hereby is GRANTED insofar as it seeks Petitioner be released from ICE detention; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall release Petitioner from ICE detention, subject to and in accordance with the conditions of his preexisting Order of Supervision; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 11) hereby is DENIED insofar as it seeks Petitioner not be re-detained by ICE in the future; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Brown’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 60) is adopted in part as the Opinion of the Court as supplemented herein; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Leave to File an Amended Habeas Petition (ECF No. 57) hereby is DISMISSED AS MOOT; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 58) hereby is DISMISSED AS MOOT; and, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to mark this matter closed.

CB nas AC PY hi □□□ ; _” Stephanie L. Haines United States District Judge