Sheikh v. United States of America Immigration Customs Enforcement

Filing 3

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that upon initial review of the Petition 1 , the court preliminarily determines that Petitioner's claim that he is being unlawfully detained is potentially cognizable in federal court. The Clerk of the court is directe d to mail copies of this Memorandum and Order and the Petition to Respondent, the United States Attorney for the District of Nebraska, and the Warden of the Douglas County Correctional Center by regular first-class mail. By September 30, 2013, Res pondent shall answer or otherwise respond to the § 2241 petition. No later than 30 days following the filing of Respondent's response, Petitioner shall file and serve a brief in response. The clerk's office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this matter: September 30, 2013: Deadline for Respondent to answer or respond to 2241 petition. Ordered by Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party) (copies mailed as directed) (ADB)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
ALI AHMED SHEIKH,
Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
IMMIGRATION CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT,
Respondent.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:13CV184

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

Liberally construed, Petitioner Ali Ahmed Sheikh petitions this court for a writ of
habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to remedy his alleged unlawful detention.
The court has conducted an initial review of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (filing
no. 1) to determine whether Petitioner’s claim is, when liberally construed, potentially
cognizable in federal court. Condensed and summarized for clarity, Petitioner alleges that
more than 180 days has passed since he was ordered removed from the United States, yet
he continues to be held in the Douglas County Correctional Center.
Liberally construed, the court preliminarily decides that Petitioner’s claim is
potentially cognizable in federal court. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1) (Immigration and
Customs Enforcement must deport most people within 90 days after they are ordered
deported from the United States); see also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001)
(holding section 2241 habeas proceedings are available as a forum for statutory and
constitutional challenges to post-removal-period detention). The court cautions Petitioner
that no determination has been made regarding the merits of his claim or any defenses to
it or whether there are procedural bars that will prevent him from obtaining the relief
sought.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
The clerk’s office is directed to update the court’s records to reflect that this
case has been brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

2.
Upon initial review of the Petition (filing no. 1), the court preliminarily
determines that Petitioner’s claim that he is being unlawfully detained is potentially
cognizable in federal court.
3.
The Clerk of the court is directed to mail copies of this Memorandum and
Order and the Petition to Respondent, the United States Attorney for the District of
Nebraska, and the Warden of the Douglas County Correctional Center by regular
first-class mail.
4.
By September 30, 2013, Respondent shall answer or otherwise respond to
the § 2241 petition.
5.
No later than 30 days following the filing of Respondent’s response,
Petitioner shall file and serve a brief in response.
6.
The clerk’s office is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in
this matter: September 30, 2013: Deadline for Respondent to answer or respond to 2241
petition.
DATED this 29th day of August, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

s/ Joseph F. Bataillon
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of
Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts
no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs
the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

2