Paul v. Attorney General et al

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge L Scott Coogler on 1/7/2014. (MSN)

FILED
2014 Jan-07 PM 03:13
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
MIDDLE DIVISION
YAPO P. ADON,
Petitioner,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney
General of the United States, et al.,
Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:13-cv-2182-LSC-JEO

MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is an action on a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241, in which Petitioner Yapo P. Adon challenges his detention pending his removal
from the United States pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), 8 U.S.C. §
1101 et seq. (Doc.1 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”)). On December 9, 2013, the magistrate judge to
whom the action was referred for preliminary review entered a report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b), recommending that Petitioner’s application for habeas relief be denied. (Doc. 2).
Specifically, the magistrate judge concluded that Petitioner’s claims contesting his detention
since the entry of a removal order are premature under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001),
because his removal order became final less than six months ago, on October 17, 2013, with the
dismissal of his appeal to the Bureau of Immigration Appeals. The magistrate judge further
concluded that any challenge to Petitioner’s detention prior to the issuance of a removal order is

1/

References herein to “Doc(s). __” are to the document numbers assigned by the Clerk of the Court to the
pleadings, motions, and other materials in the court file, as reflected on the docket sheet in the court’s Case
Management/Electronic Case Files system.

moot. Petitioner has filed response objecting to the magistrate judge’s report and
recommendation. (See Doc. 3 at pp. 22-30).
Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file,
including the findings and recommendation of the magistrate judge and the Petitioner’s
objections thereto, the court is of the opinion that the magistrate judge’s findings are due to be
and are hereby ADOPTED and his recommendation is ACCEPTED. Petitioner’s objections are
OVERRULED. As a result, Petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus is due to be
DENIED. A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE, this 7th day of January, 2014.

L. SCOTT COOGLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
174256