Jamila Rajabi v. Unknown Defendant, et al.

W.D. Louisiana

Jamila Rajabi v. Unknown Defendant, et al.

DecidedMay 6, 2026

Docket3:26-cv-00922

StatusUnknown

This text of Jamila Rajabi v. Unknown Defendant, et al. (Jamila Rajabi v. Unknown Defendant, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jamila Rajabi v. Unknown Defendant, et al., (W.D. La. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION

JAMILA RAJABI A221-389-683 CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-CV-00922 SEC P

VERSUS JUDGE ALEXANDER C VAN HOOK

UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAROL B. WHITEHURST

MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) filed by pro se Petitioner Jamila Rajabi (“Rajabi”), an immigration detainee at the Richwood Correctional Center in Monroe, Louisiana. Rajabi challenges the legality of her continued detention. A court may order a respondent to file an answer, motion, or other response, in its discretion. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 278 (2008); Maniar v. Warden Pine Prairie Corr. Ctr., 6:18-CV-00544, 2018 WL 4869383, at *1 (W.D. La. 2018)1. And this Court has determined that a 21 day briefing schedule with seven days to reply is reasonable and appropriate in similar cases.

1 Under Rule 1(b), the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases also apply to § 2241 habeas cases. See Hickey v. Adler, 2008 WL 835764, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2008); Castillo v. Pratt, 162 F. Supp. 2d 575, 577 (N.D. Tex. 2001); Wyant v. Edwards, 952 F. Supp. 348 (S.D. W.Va. 1997); see also Taylor v. Gusman, 20-CV-449, 2020 WL 1848073, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 13, 2020) (“District courts are therefore free to apply these rules to habeas petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”). To determine whether Rajabi is entitled to relief, THE CLERK IS DIRECTED to serve a summons, a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1) and a copy of this Order, by certified mail, on: (1) the United States through the United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana; (2) the United States Attorney General; (3) DHS/ICE through its Office of General Counsel; and by regular mail

on (4) the Warden where Rajabi is detained. IT IS ORDERED that a response be filed within 21 days after service on the United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, with summary judgment evidence regarding the status of Rajabi’s immigration proceedings, the legality of her detention, and any efforts to obtain removal documents from any country. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall have seven days to reply. After the record is complete and delays have run, the Court will determine if genuine issues of material fact exist, which preclude summary judgment and necessitate an evidentiary hearing. If no hearing is necessary, a Report and Recommendation will be issued without further notice. THUS DONE in Chambers on this 6th day of May 2026.

United States Magistrate Judge

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA MONROE DIVISION

JAMILA RAJABI A221-389-683 CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:26-CV-00922 SEC P

VERSUS JUDGE ALEXANDER C VAN HOOK

UNKNOWN DEFENDANT, ET AL. MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAROL B. WHITEHURST

MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) filed by pro se Petitioner Jamila Rajabi (“Rajabi”), an immigration detainee at the Richwood Correctional Center in Monroe, Louisiana. Rajabi challenges the legality of her continued detention. A court may order a respondent to file an answer, motion, or other response, in its discretion. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; Danforth v. Minnesota, 552 U.S. 264, 278 (2008); Maniar v. Warden Pine Prairie Corr. Ctr., 6:18-CV-00544, 2018 WL 4869383, at *1 (W.D. La. 2018)1. And this Court has determined that a 21 day briefing schedule with seven days to reply is reasonable and appropriate in similar cases.

1 Under Rule 1(b), the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases also apply to § 2241 habeas cases. See Hickey v. Adler, 2008 WL 835764, *2 (E.D. Cal. 2008); Castillo v. Pratt, 162 F. Supp. 2d 575, 577 (N.D. Tex. 2001); Wyant v. Edwards, 952 F. Supp. 348 (S.D. W.Va. 1997); see also Taylor v. Gusman, 20-CV-449, 2020 WL 1848073, at *1 (E.D. La. Apr. 13, 2020) (“District courts are therefore free to apply these rules to habeas petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.”). To determine whether Rajabi is entitled to relief, THE CLERK IS DIRECTED to serve a summons, a copy of the Petition (Doc. 1) and a copy of this Order, by certified mail, on: (1) the United States through the United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana; (2) the United States Attorney General; (3) DHS/ICE through its Office of General Counsel; and by regular mail

on (4) the Warden where Rajabi is detained. IT IS ORDERED that a response be filed within 21 days after service on the United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, with summary judgment evidence regarding the status of Rajabi’s immigration proceedings, the legality of her detention, and any efforts to obtain removal documents from any country. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall have seven days to reply. After the record is complete and delays have run, the Court will determine if genuine issues of material fact exist, which preclude summary judgment and necessitate an evidentiary hearing. If no hearing is necessary, a Report and Recommendation will be issued without further notice. THUS DONE in Chambers on this 6th day of May 2026.

United States Magistrate Judge

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jamila Rajabi v. Unknown Defendant, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jamila-rajabi-v-unknown-defendant-et-al-lawd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack