Meda v. LaSalle Detention Facility et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM ORDER: Directing plaintiff to amend complaint/petition. Pro Se Response due by 9/6/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph H L Perez-Montes on 8/7/2017. (crt,ThomasSld, T)

a
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
VISHNU PRADEEP MEDA,
Petitioner

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:17-CV-546-P

VERSUS

CHIEF JUDGE DRELL

WARDEN,
Respondent

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 by pro se Petitioner Vishnu Pradeep Meda (“Meda”) (#A205857225).
Meda is an immigration detainee in the custody of the Department of Homeland
Security/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“DHS/ICE”). He is being
detained at the LaSalle Detention Center in Jena, Louisiana.
I.

Background
Meda was convicted of five counts of health care fraud. United States v. Meda,

No. 11-cr-20052, 2017 WL 993182, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 15, 2017). Meda was
sentenced to concurrent terms of 46 months of imprisonment. Id. Following Meda’s
conviction, DHS issued a notice of intent to issue final administrative removal order.
(Doc. 1, p. 10). Meda’s conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal. United
States v. Meda, 812 F.3d 502, 507 (6th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 136 S. Ct. 1534 (2016).
Meda complains that DHS improperly issued the notice of intent to issue a
final administrative removal order during the pendency of Meda’s criminal appeal.
Meda claims that, since his appeal was pending, his criminal conviction was not final

and he was not “deportable” under the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1226. (Doc. 1, p. 10).
Meda also claims his detention is improper because: (1) it violates the rule announced
in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001); (2) there was no probable cause
determination; and (3) it is excessive in light of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1, pp.
10-12).
II.

Instructions to Amend
Meda cites Zadvydas,1 but does not claim he has been detained beyond the

presumptively reasonable six-month period set forth in Zadvydas. Id. Nor has Meda
alleged “good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the
reasonably foreseeable future.” Agyei–Kodie v. Holder, 418 F. App’x 317, 318 (5th
Cir. 2011). The alien bears the initial burden of proof to show that no such likelihood
of removal exists. See Andrade v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 538 (5th Cir. 2006).
Meda shall amend his complaint and clarify whether he is making a Zadvydas
claim. If so, Meda must provide: (1) a copy of the removal order issued by the
immigration judge; (2) whether he appealed the removal order to the Board of
Immigration Appeals (“BIA”); (3) a copy of the BIA’s decision/order dismissing Meda’s
appeal; and (4) copies of any notices of review of Meda’s custody status. Meda should

1In

Zadvydas v. Davis, the United States Supreme Court held that in order for postremoval detention under INA § 241(a)(6) to be constitutional, it must be limited “to a
period reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United
States.” Zadvydas, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). The Supreme Court went on to recognize six
months as a presumptively reasonable period of detention for immigration detainees
following a final order of removal. Id.
2

also explain why there is no significant likelihood of his removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future.
IT IS ORDERED that Meda amend his complaint within thirty (30) days of the
filing of this Order to provide the information outlined above.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of this action under
Rule 41(b) or 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner is further
required to notify the Court of any change in his address under Rule 41.3 of the Local
Rules for the Western District of Louisiana.
7th
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers in Alexandria, Louisiana, this ____
day of August, 2017.
____________________________________
Joseph H.L. Perez-Montes
United States Magistrate Judge

3