United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
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
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge
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.
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.
THE AMENDED PETITION
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ...