United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
(DKT. NO. 1) AND DISMISSING THE CASE.
PAMELA PEPPER United States District Judge.
petitioner, Yusuf Mjili, is representing himself. On February
16, 2016, he filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. Dkt.
No. 1. At the time he filed the petition, the petitioner was
being held in the Dodge County Detention Facility on an
immigration hold issued by the Department of Homeland
Security/Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. Id.
The petitioner, however, did not file the entire petition;
specifically, the petition was missing the pages that
explained why he was seeking relief, and what kind of relief
he was seeking.
February 18, 2016, the court issued an order requiring the
petitioner to amend the petition, requiring that he file a
complete petition. Dkt. No. 4. The petitioner filed the
amended petition on March 9, 2016, explaining that he'd
been held for ten months, and that he'd learned that the
government of Tanzania would not be issuing him any travel
documents. Dkt. No. 6. Accordingly, on May 26, 2016, the
court issued an order screening the petition, and requiring
the respondent to file an answer within thirty days-in other
words, by approximately June 27, 2016. Dkt. No. 10. Due to
the fact that as of July 29, 2016, the respondent had failed
to file a response, the court ordered the respondent to file
an answer or a document showing cause why he failed to meet
the court's deadline. Dkt. No. 12. The respondent filed a
response on August 24, 2016. Dkt. No. 14. For the following
reasons, the court the must deny the petition.
March 9, 2016, the petitioner filed an amended habeas corpus
petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. Dkt. No. 6. At the
time, he was 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 detained for
about ten months. Id. at 4. This petition was his
first and only challenge to this detention. Id. at
pages 10-12 of the amended 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 in 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 [cooperated] 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, the petitioner 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 and that he should be
August 24, 2016, the respondent filed the response to the
petition. Dkt. No. 14. The respondent informed the court that
the petitioner had been released from custody on May 24, 2016
and asked the court to dismiss the petition as moot.
Id. at 2.
U.S.C. §1231(a)(3), an alien can be detained for ninety
days pending removal. Some aliens, including those who have
committed certain crimes or “have been determined by
the Attorney General to be a risk to the community or
unlikely to comply with the order of removal, may be detained
beyond the removal period, ” and if they are released,
may be subject to other terms of supervision. See 8
U.S.C. §1231(a)(6). In Zadvydas v. Davis, the
Supreme Court concluded that six months was a presumptively
reasonable time to detain an alien pending removal under
§1231(a)(6). Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678,
701 (2001); but see 8 C.F.R. §241.14.
corpus is the appropriate vehicle for obtaining release
from immigration custody where there is an inordinate delay
pending removal. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 687
(under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (federal courts have
jurisdiction to consider post-removal period detention
cases). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c), a writ of habeas
corpus “shall not extend to a prisoner”
unless he is “in custody.” The “in
custody” requirement is satisfied at the time of the
filing of the petition. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S.
1, 7 (1998) (citing Carafas v. La Vallee, 391 U.S.
234, 238 (1968) and Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488,
490-491 (1989)). A post-removal detainee “who is
released while his petition for writ of habeas
corpus is ...