ORIAKHI v. JOHNSON et al
OPINION. Signed by Judge Kevin McNulty on 7/7/17. (sr, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Civ. No. 16-8651 (KM)
KEVIN MCNULTY. U.S.D.J.
The petitioner, Felix Oriakhi is proceeding prose with a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2241 seeking release from immigration detention. On April 10,
2017, this Court denied the habeas petition without prejudice. Mr. Oriakhi was given the
opportunity to reopen this action within forty-five days if he was still in immigration detention.
On May 30, 2017, this Court received Mr. Oriakhi’s motion to reopen and for reconsideration.
(See Dkt. No. 22) This matter was then reopened. (See Dkt. No. 23) It appears, however, that as
of June 16, 2017, Mr. Oriakhi was no longer an immigration detainee. For the following reasons,
the motion for reconsideration will be denied as moot.
Mr. Oriakhi isa native and citizen of Nigeria. He entered the United States in 1980.
Thereafter, Mr. Oriakhi was convicted in Maryland of conspiracy to distribute heroin, and
received a 360-month prison sentence. On March 13, 2013, as Mr. Oriakhi was serving his
criminal sentence, a final order of removal was entered against him in immigration proceedings.
Upon his release from custody on his criminal sentence, on May 4, 2016, Mr. Oriakhi was placed
into immigration detention.
Mr. Oriakhi filed a habeas petition in this Court in November, 2016. Ne argued that the
amount of time he had spent in immigration detention was excessive under the standards of
Zath’ydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
On April 10, 2017, this Court denied Mr. Oriakhi’s habeas petition without prejudice.
(See Dkt. Nos. 20 & 21) At that time, I noted that Mr. Oriakhi had been in post-removal
immigration detention for over eleven months. That period of time in and of itself did not compel
federal habeas relief, and Mr. Oriakhi had not then produced evidence that there was no
reasonable likelihood of his actual removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Nevertheless, I
was mindful that Mr. Oriakhi’s post-removal immigration detention was quickly approaching
one year and that the longer an alien is detained, the less proof he must put forward to obtain
relief See Alexander
Attorney Gen. United States. 495 F. App’x 274, 276-77 (3d Cir. 20120
(citing Zac/vydas, 533 U.S. at 701). Accordingly. Mr. Oriakhi was given the opportunity to
reopen this case after forty-five days if he remained in immigration detention.
On May 30, 2017, still in immigration detention, Mr. Oriakhi filed a motion to reopen his
case and for reconsideration of the Court’s earlier ruling denying relief. I reopened the matter
and ordered the respondent to file a response. That response (Dkt. No. 24), filed June 19, 2017,
states that Mr. Oriakhi was ordered to be released from immigration detention following a
determination that it was unlikely that he would be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.
(See Id. at p.1) Accordingly, on June 16, 2017, Mr. Oriakhi was released from immigration
detention under an order of supen’ision. (See Id. at p.5-I 0) On June 28, 2017, this Court received
a notice of change of address from Mr. Oriakhi, which indicates that he is now residing in New
As a general matter, in Zadvydas, 533 U.S. 678, the United States Supreme Court held
1231 (a)(6)’ “limits an alien’s post-removal-period detention to a period reasonably
necessary to bring about that aliens removal from the United States. It does not pemlit indefinite
detention.” 533 U.S. at 689. To state a habeas claim under
2241, the petitioner must provide
facts showing good reason to believe that there is no reasonable likelihood of his actual removal
in the reasonably foreseeable future. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. “Zadvydas does not
delineate the boundaries of evidentiary sufficiency, but it suggests that an inversely proportional
relationship is at play: the longer an alien is detained, the less he must put forward to obtain
relieF’ Alexander, 495 F. Appx at 276-77 (citing Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701). As a rule of thumb,
the Supreme Court stated that six months is a presumptively reasonable period of post-removal
123 1(a)(6). See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701.
Mr. Oriakhi is no longer in immigration detention. Thus, he has received the relief he
seeks. There is no reason to think that he will be placed in immigration detention again unless he
violates the conditions of his supervision, a speculative state of affairs and one within Mr.
Section 123 1(a)(6) states as follows:
An alien ordered removed who is inadmissible under Section 1182
of this title, removable under section 1227(a)(1)(C), 1227(a)(2), or
1227(a)(4) of this title who has 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 released, shall be subject to the terms of supervision in
Oriakhi’s control. Accordingly, there is no basis to grant him habeas relief as his habeas petition
seeking his release from immigration detention is moot because “has achieved the result he
sought in his habeas petition and his change in circumstances has ‘forestalled any occasion for
meaningful relief” Nunes v Decker, 480 F. App’x 173, 175 (3d Cir. 2012) (quoting Artu’ay v.
A/i y Gen., 81 F.3d 1235, 1246 (3d Cir. 1996)) (other citation omitted); see also Dubois v. Hen
chicks, No. 14—3861, 2014 WL 4105482, at 3 (D.N.J. Aug. 18, 2014) (dismissing habeas
petition raising Zadvydas claim as moot where petitioner was released from immigration
detention pursuant to an order of supervision); Rojas v. Lowe, No. 13—0871, 2013 WL 5876851,
at *3 (M.D.Pa. Oct. 30, 2013) (same). Accordingly, Mr. Oriakhi’s motion for reconsideration
vil1 be denied as moot.
For the foregoing reasons, the motion for reconsideration will be denied as moot and the
matter will be closed. An appropriate order will be entered.
DATED: July 7,2017
United States District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?