Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mjili v. Pollard

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin

May 26, 2016

YUSUF HERI BAKARI MJILI, Petitioner,
v.
WILLIAM POLLARD, [1]Respondent.

          ORDER DENYING AS MOOT THE PETITIONER’S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DKT. NO. 7), SCREENING THE AMENDED PETITION (DKT. NO. 6) AND REQUIRING A RESPONSE

          HON. PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge

         INTRODUCTION

         On February 16, 2016, petitioner Yusuf Heri Bakari Mjili (currently detained at the Dodge County Detention Facility) filed an Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 By a Person in Custody. Dkt. No. 1. The document was eight pages long, although the official form for filing petitions under §2241 is thirteen pages, not counting the instruction page. Without the missing pages, the court could not determine what the petitioner alleged the respondents had done, why he asserted that their actions were wrong, or what he wanted the court to do. Therefore, the court ordered the petitioner to file an amended complaint by Friday April 28, 2016. Dkt. No. 4.

         On March 9, 2016, the petitioner filed an amended petition. Dkt. No. 6. With the petition, he filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 7. When the petitioner filed his first petition on February 16, 2016, however, he paid the $5.00 filing fee in full. He does not have to pay a second filing fee for filing an amended petition. Therefore, the court will deny as moot the petitioner’s motion to proceed without paying the filing fee. Because the petitioner has paid the filing fee in full and has timely filed an amended petition, the court will now screen his petition.

         SCREENING THE AMENDED PETITION

         On March 9, 2016, the petitioner filed an amended habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. Dkt. No. 6. The petitioner currently is incarcerated at Dodge County Detention Facility. Id. at 1. His petition challenges his detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). Id. at 2. He asserts that on April 20, 2015, ICE issued a “final order of removal (deportation)” for the petitioner. Id. at 2, 4. At the time he filled out the petition, the petitioner had “been detailed as an immigration detainee” for about ten months. Id. at 4. This petition is his first and only challenge to this detention. Id. at 5-9.

         On pages 10-12 of the petition, the petitioner provides four grounds for relief, and describes what he would like the court to do. He entitles ground one, “Unavailability of Travel Documents in foreseeable Future.” Id. at 10. According to the petitioner, the government of Tanzania has not issued him travel documents in the ten months prior to the date he filed the amended complaint, “claiming that Mr. Yusuf Mjili is NOT a citizen of Tanzania. Therefore no Travel documents will be issued in foreseeable Future.” Id.

         In ground two, the petitioner states that he has been in ICE custody “for Ten Months after Signing the Final order of Removal documents presented by ICE Agent.” Id. He indicates that he was placed into ICE custody on April 20, 2015, and that he signed the final order of removal (issued by the immigration judge) the same day. Id. at 6-7. The petitioner states that he has “Fully with ICE Agents by signing any and . . . every document presented by ICE in order to Facilitate the Removal Process to the Native Country of Tanzania.” Id. at 11.

         Third, the petitioner asserts that he qualifies for release “under Supervision or Release under the order of Supervision.” Id. Because Tanzania will not issue travel documents “in the foreseeable Future, ” the petitioner requests that ICE release him. Id. He notes that he has “Friends in Chicago and Des Moine, IA[] who are willing and able to live with him for the Time being.” Id.

         Finally, in his fourth ground for relief, alleges that he “has been attending AA, NA and Work Programs offered by Dodge County detention facility, ” so that he can improve and be a productive member of society. Id. at 12. He asserts that he “intend[s] to continue with Rehabilitation” if released “by attending Various Sub[s]tance Abuse Education in order to be a Productive Member of Society.” Id.

         Page 12 of the petition contains a section entitled “Request for Relief.” It asks the petitioner to “[s]tate exactly what you want the court to do for you.” Id. In this section, the petitioner “ask[s] the Court to order his Release from Custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).” Id. He again emphasizes that Tanzania will not issue travel documents any time soon. Because of that and because he has been detained for ten (now thirteen) months, he “should be released.” Id.

         In accordance with Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing 2254 Cases and Civil L. R. 9(a)(2), the court applies the Rules Governing Section 2254 cases to petitions for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2241. Chagala v. Beth, No. 15-CV-531, 2015 WL 2345614, at *1 (E.D. Wis. May 15, 2015). Those rules require the court to review, or “screen” the petition. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases states:

If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to notify the petitioner. If the petition is not dismissed, the judge must order the respondent to file an answer, motion, or other response within a fixed time, or to take other action the judge may order.

         According to the petitioner, ICE issued a final order of removal on April 20, 2015. “There is a constitutional presumption that the government must secure removal within six months following a final order of removal.” Belafkih v. Dep’t. of Homeland Sec., No. 07-C-452, 2007 WL 1651327, at *1 (E.D. Wis. June 5, 2007). “‘After this 6-month period, once the alien provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.