Moses Onyango Okoth v. U S Immigration & Customs Enforcement

W.D. Louisiana

Moses Onyango Okoth v. U S Immigration & Customs Enforcement

DecidedJanuary 12, 2026

Docket1:25-cv-01848

StatusUnknown

This text of Moses Onyango Okoth v. U S Immigration & Customs Enforcement (Moses Onyango Okoth v. U S Immigration & Customs Enforcement) 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

Moses Onyango Okoth v. U S Immigration & Customs Enforcement, (W.D. La. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

MOSES ONYANGO OKOTH #A087- CIVIL DOCKET NO. 1:25-CV-01848 686-062, SEC P Petitioner

VERSUS JUDGE EDWARDS

U S IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES ENFORCEMENT, Respondent

MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) filed by pro se Petitioner Moses Onyango Okoth (“Okoth”), an immigration detainee at Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, Louisiana. Okoth challenges the legality of his continued detention. Because additional information is necessary to evaluate Okoth’s claim, he must AMEND the Petition. I. Background Okoth is a native and citizen of Kenya. ECF No. 1-1 at 1. He was ordered removed on June 9, 2010. Okoth does not state the date he was detained, but alleges that he has been in custody beyond the presumptively reasonable removal period. He also asserts that there is no substantial likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. ECF No. 1 at 6. II. Analysis The Constitution prohibits indefinite detention of immigration detainees. Accordingly, detention beyond the 90 day removal period is only allowed for a period reasonably necessary to bring about a detainee’s removal from the United States. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). Detention for up to six months is presumed reasonable. Jd. After six months, if a detainee provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing. The six-month presumption does not mean that every alien not removed must be released after six months. To the contrary, an alien may be held in confinement until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. Okoth does not allege reasons why his removal is unlikely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, he must amend the Petition. Ill. Conclusion Because additional information is needed to evaluate the Petition, IT IS ORDERED that Okoth AMEND the Petition within 30 days to state why there is no significant likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. SIGNED on Monday, January 12, 2026. ~ oo JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

a UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

MOSES ONYANGO OKOTH #A087- CIVIL DOCKET NO. 1:25-CV-01848 686-062, SEC P Petitioner

VERSUS JUDGE EDWARDS

U S IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES ENFORCEMENT, Respondent

MEMORANDUM ORDER Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) filed by pro se Petitioner Moses Onyango Okoth (“Okoth”), an immigration detainee at Winn Correctional Center in Winnfield, Louisiana. Okoth challenges the legality of his continued detention. Because additional information is necessary to evaluate Okoth’s claim, he must AMEND the Petition. I. Background Okoth is a native and citizen of Kenya. ECF No. 1-1 at 1. He was ordered removed on June 9, 2010. Okoth does not state the date he was detained, but alleges that he has been in custody beyond the presumptively reasonable removal period. He also asserts that there is no substantial likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. ECF No. 1 at 6. II. Analysis The Constitution prohibits indefinite detention of immigration detainees. Accordingly, detention beyond the 90 day removal period is only allowed for a period reasonably necessary to bring about a detainee’s removal from the United States. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001). Detention for up to six months is presumed reasonable. Jd. After six months, if a detainee provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing. The six-month presumption does not mean that every alien not removed must be released after six months. To the contrary, an alien may be held in confinement until it has been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. Okoth does not allege reasons why his removal is unlikely to occur in the reasonably foreseeable future. Accordingly, he must amend the Petition. Ill. Conclusion Because additional information is needed to evaluate the Petition, IT IS ORDERED that Okoth AMEND the Petition within 30 days to state why there is no significant likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. SIGNED on Monday, January 12, 2026. ~ oo JOSEPH H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Moses Onyango Okoth v. U S Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moses-onyango-okoth-v-u-s-immigration-customs-enforcement-lawd-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack