Eduardo Iglesias Quintairos v. Warden, South Florida Detention Facility, US Attorney General

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA FORT MYERS DIVISION

EDUARDO IGLESIAS

QUINTAIROS,

Petitioner, Case No. 2:26-cv-1804-KCD-NPM

v.

WARDEN, SOUTH FLORIDA DETENTION FACILITY, US ATTORNEY GENERAL,

Respondents. /

ORDER Petitioner Eduardo Iglesias Quintairos is a Cuban citizen with a final removal order. (Doc. 7-1 at 2, 7, 8.)1 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) apparently could not deport him at that time, so he was released on an order of supervision. After spending two decades living in the community under supervision, Quintairos was returned to immigration custody on February 3, 2026. He now seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, asking this Court to order his immediate release. (Doc. 1.) For the reasons below, the petition is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all internal quotation marks, citations, case history, and alterations have been omitted in this and later citations. I. Legal Framework The federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2241, provides authority to

issue writs of habeas corpus when an individual is “[i]n custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” Id. § 2241(c)(3). “At its historical core, the writ of habeas corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in that context that its

protections have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 (2001). “Section 2241 authorizes federal courts to hear challenges to immigration detention.” Grigorian v. Bondi, No. 25-CV-22914-RAR, 2025 WL 2604573, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Sept. 9, 2025).

II. Discussion A. Substantive Due Process Invoking the Fifth Amendment, Quintairos first claims that he has been detained beyond the bounds of what substantive due process allows.

(Doc. 1 at 7.) The statutory framework for removal works like this: when a noncitizen’s removal order becomes final, like here, the government has 90 days to effectuate removal. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A). During that period, detention is mandatory. Id. § 1231(a)(2)(A). If the 90 days pass and the

noncitizen is still here, the statute gives the government a choice: release the individual on supervision or keep them detained. Id. § 1231(a)(6). But as the Supreme Court explained in Zadvydas v. Davis, the authority to detain does not stretch into infinity. To avoid serious

constitutional problems, the Court read an implicit limitation into the statute: the government may detain a noncitizen only for a period “reasonably necessary” to secure his removal. 533 U.S. 678 (2001). And to make that rule workable, the Court established a presumption. For the first

six months, detention is presumptively reasonable. Id. at 701. After that period has passed and the alien “provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,” the burden then shifts to the government to provide evidence sufficient to rebut

that showing. Akinwale v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050, 1052 (11th Cir. 2002). Thus, “in order to state a claim under Zadvydas, the alien not only must show post-removal order detention in excess of six months but also must provide evidence of a good reason to believe that there is no significant

likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Id. ICE took Quintairos into custody on February 3, 2026. Because he has been detained for less than six months, he remains within the window in which his detention is presumptively reasonable. Seemingly recognizing this,

the habeas petition jumps to the burden-shifting framework, arguing that his removal is not likely. (Doc. 1 at 7.) But that argument puts the cart before the horse. Until the six-month Zadvydas period concludes, detention is presumptively reasonable, and any due process claim is not ripe. See, e.g., Grigorian v. Bondi, Case No. 25-CV-22914-RAR, 2025 WL 1895479, at *8

(S.D. Fla. July 8, 2025); Lopez v. Dir. of Enf’t and Removal Operations, Case No. 3:25-cv-1313-JEP-SJH, 2026 WL 261938, at *12 (M.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2026); Guerra-Castro v. Parra, Case No. 25-cv-22487-GAYLES, 2025 WL 1984300 at *4 (S.D. Fla. July 17, 2025) (finding habeas petition “premature”

because “Petitioner has not been detained for more than six months”). Quintairos attempts a workaround. He argues that the six-month reasonable detention period is cumulative, starting when his removal order became final back in 2005. (Doc. 1 at 7.) Using that calculus, the six-month

period has long since passed. This argument makes little sense. Zadvydas was aimed at the severe, physical deprivation of liberty that comes from sitting in a jail cell indefinitely. The Court “used the words ‘detain’ and ‘custody’ to refer

exclusively to physical confinement and restraint.” Jennings, 583 U.S. at 311. Against that backdrop, it is illogical to run a clock designed to prevent indefinite imprisonment while a person is out living freely in the community. “Because Zadvydas clearly involved detention of a petitioner during the

presumptively reasonable period, it defies common sense to suggest that Zadvydas time can run while a petitioner is not in custody.” Cheng Ke Chen v. Holder, 783 F. Supp. 2d 1183, 1192 (N.D. Ala. 2011). The six-month clock measures actual lockup, not supervised freedom. See Akinwale, 287 F.3d at 1052 (“[I]n order to state a claim under Zadvydas the alien ... must show

post-removal order detention in excess of six months [and] also must provide evidence of a good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” (emphasis added).) B. Procedural Due Process

As best the Court can tell, Quintairos also presses a procedural due process claim. But it’s not entirely clear which process he failed to receive. He seems to argue that he was not provided an opportunity to contest his detention. Yet it isn’t clear that Quintairos is entitled to a freestanding due

process analysis at this time. When the Supreme Court confronted the constitutional perils of indefinite immigration detention in Zadvydas v. Davis, it did not instruct lower courts to start weighing the process afforded to the detainee. It set a timer. For the first six months, detention is

presumptively reasonable. 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). So until that timer goes off, Zadvydas itself seemingly supplies the constitutional metric. Martinez v. Larose, 968 F.3d 555, 566 (6th Cir. 2020). “In other words, the Zadvydas standard is due process: a § 1231 detainee who fails the Zadvydas test fails to

prove a due process violation.” Castaneda v. Perry, 95 F.4th 750, 760 (4th Cir. 2024). Because Quintairos’ detention is barely out of the starting gate, he is not yet entitled to anything more. III. Conclusion The habeas petition (Doc. 1) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to Quintairos refiling a new petition should his current detention be unimpeded and he can demonstrate there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment accordingly, terminate any pending motions and deadlines, and close the

case. ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on June 25, 2026.

KyleC.Dudek™” United States District Judge