Loussaief v. Wolf

CourtDistrict Court, D. Arizona
DecidedJanuary 21, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-00042
StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook
Loussaief v. Wolf, (D. Ariz. 2021).

Opinion

1 WO MW 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Bilel Loussaief, No. CV-21-00042-PHX-JAT (MHB) 10 Petitioner, ORDER 11 v.

12 Chad Wolf, et al.,

13 Respondents.

14 15 Petitioner Bilel Loussaief (A# 201-941-735), who is detained in the CoreCivic La 16 Palma Correctional Center (“LPCC”) in Eloy, Arizona, has filed a pro se Petition for Writ 17 of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) and paid the filing fee. The Court will 18 dismiss the Petition with leave to amend. 19 I. Background 20 Petitioner is a native and citizen of an unknown foreign country who was detained 21 in the custody of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), 22 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), on July 26, 2019. On October 25, 2019, 23 he was ordered removed from the United States by an immigration judge in Dallas, Texas, 24 and his appeal of that decision was dismissed by the Board of Immigration Appeals on 25 April 17, 2020.1 Petitioner did not appeal the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. 26

27 1 See Executive Office for Immigration Review Automated Case Information, 28 https://portal.eoir.justice.gov/InfoSystem/CourtInfo. 1 II. Petition 2 In the Petition, Petitioner names former Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf, former 3 United States Attorney General William Barr, former Acting ICE Director Tony H. Pham, 4 former ICE Phoenix Field Office Director Henry Lucero, DHS, and ICE. 5 Although listed as four separate grounds, Petitioner appears to bring three claims 6 for relief. First, Petitioner challenges his indefinite detention. He claims that he has been 7 detained in excess of six months after his order of removal became final, and there is no 8 significant likelihood that he will be removed from the United States in the reasonably 9 foreseeable future. Second, Petitioner challenges his prolonged detention in post-removal 10 order custody without a hearing before an impartial decisionmaker to determine whether 11 his detention is justified. Third, Petitioner challenges his conditions of confinement. He 12 alleges there is an “increased risk of transmissibility of COVID-19” in detention and he 13 suffers from paramyotonia congenita, or Eulenburg disease, which places him at a higher 14 risk of severe illness if he were contract COVID-19. 15 Petitioner asks the Court to issue a writ of habeas corpus ordering his immediate 16 release from detention or, in the alternative, to order Respondents to provide him with a 17 bond hearing at which the government must establish by clear and convincing evidence 18 that he poses a flight risk or a danger to the community in order to justify his continued 19 detention, taking into account available alternatives to detention. 20 III. Habeas Corpus Review 21 A federal district court is authorized to grant a writ of habeas corpus under 22 28 U.S.C. § 2241 where a petitioner is “in custody under or by color of the authority of the 23 United States . . . in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 24 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241(c)(1), (3). The writ of habeas corpus historically “provide[s] a means 25 of contesting the lawfulness of restraint and securing release.” Department of Homeland 26 Security v. Thuraissigiam, 591 U.S. ___, 140 S. Ct. 1959, 1969 (2020); see also Munaf v. 27 Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008); Trinidad y Garcia v. Thomas, 683 F.3d 952, 956 (9th 28 Cir. 2012) (habeas corpus “provides a remedy to non-citizens challenging executive 1 detention.”). 2 District courts are directed to screen habeas corpus petitions before requiring the 3 government to file a response. A district court may summarily dismiss a habeas corpus 4 petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner 5 is not entitled to relief in the district court.” Rule 4, foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254.2 See also 6 McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994) (“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss 7 summarily any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face”); Clayton v. 8 Biter, 868 F.3d 840, 845 (9th Cir. 2017) (“District courts adjudicating habeas petitions 9 . . . are instructed to summarily dismiss claims that are clearly not cognizable.”); Gutierrez 10 v. Griggs, 695 F.2d 1195, 1198 (9th Cir. 1983) (Rule 4 “explicitly allows a district court to 11 dismiss summarily the petition on the merits when no claim for relief is stated”). 12 A. Indefinite Detention 13 Petitioner fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim of indefinite detention. In 14 Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), the Supreme Court found that 8 U.S.C. 15 § 1231(a)(6), the post-removal order detention statute, “implicitly limits an alien’s 16 detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the 17 United States, and does not permit indefinite detention.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 679. It 18 held that six months is a presumptively reasonable period, but “[a]fter this 6-month period, 19 once the alien provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of 20 removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,” the government must respond by either 21 rebutting that showing or releasing the alien. Id. at 701. 22 To be eligible for release under the rule announced in Zadvydas, a petitioner 23 detained under § 1231(a)(6) bears the initial burden to present grounds showing there is 24 good reason to find that there is no significant likelihood that he will be removed in the 25 reasonably foreseeable future, even if the six month presumptively reasonable period of 26 detention has expired. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701 (the “six-month presumption . . . 27 2 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts apply 28 to habeas corpus proceedings under § 2241. See Rule 1(b), foll. 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 1 does not mean that every alien not removed must be released after six months. To the 2 contrary, an alien may be held in confinement until it has been determined that there is no 3 significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future”). 4 While Petitioner argues there is no significant likelihood that he will be removed in 5 the reasonably foreseeable future, he has not alleged facts to support this claim. For 6 example, Petitioner does not allege that his country of removal has refused or is unable to 7 issue him a travel document, nor has he alleged other facts which indicate that his removal 8 is not feasible. See, e.g., Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 384 (2005) (where repatriation 9 negotiations for removal of aliens to Cuba had ceased, removal was not reasonably 10 foreseeable); Nadarajah v. Gonzales,

Related

Bell v. Wolfish
441 U.S. 520 (Supreme Court, 1979)
McFarland v. Scott
512 U.S. 849 (Supreme Court, 1994)
Clark v. Martinez
543 U.S. 371 (Supreme Court, 2005)
Munaf v. Geren
553 U.S. 674 (Supreme Court, 2008)
Diouf v. Napolitano
634 F.3d 1081 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Michael Henry Ferdik v. Joe Bonzelet, Sheriff
963 F.2d 1258 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
Trevor A. Laing v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General
370 F.3d 994 (Ninth Circuit, 2004)
Nadarajah v. Gonzales
443 F.3d 1069 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Hedelito Garcia v. Linda Thomas
683 F.3d 952 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Michael Lacey v. Joseph Arpaio
693 F.3d 896 (Ninth Circuit, 2012)
Prieto-Romero v. Clark
534 F.3d 1053 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Zadvydas v. Davis
533 U.S. 678 (Supreme Court, 2001)
Curtis Clayton v. Martin Biter
868 F.3d 840 (Ninth Circuit, 2017)
Esteban Aleman Gonzalez v. William Barr
955 F.3d 762 (Ninth Circuit, 2020)
Edwin Omar Flores Tejada v. Elizabeth Godfrey
954 F.3d 1245 (Ninth Circuit, 2020)
Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam
591 U.S. 103 (Supreme Court, 2020)
Kelvin Hernandez Roman v. Chad Wolf
977 F.3d 935 (Ninth Circuit, 2020)
Leonardo v. Crawford
646 F.3d 1157 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Loussaief v. Wolf, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/loussaief-v-wolf-azd-2021.