Kakhidze v. Venegas

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT August 20, 2025 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Nathan Ochsner, Clerk BROWNSVILLE DIVISION

DAVID KAKHIDZE, § § Plaintiff, § § VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-136 § FRANCISCO VENEGAS, § § Respondent. §

ORDER

In July 2025, Petitioner David Kakhidze filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his continued immigration custody. (Petition, Doc. 14) An immigration judge had issued a final removal order on February 20, 2025, but Kakhidze remained in custody in the United States when he filed his lawsuit. (Id.) A Magistrate Judge recommends the dismissal of the petition as not ripe and subject to dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (R&R, Doc. 16) The Report and Recommendation primarily relies on the principle that challenges to continued post-removal-period detention are considered premature until after six months have passed. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001); Agyei-Kodie v. Holder, 418 F. App’x 317, 318 (5th Cir. 2011). No party filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the Court finds no plain error within it. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). As a result, the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 16). It is: ORDERED that Petitioner David Kakhidze’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 14) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this matter.

1 / 2 Signed on August 20, 2025. Tower □ Fernando Rodriguez, Jr. United States District Judge

2/2