Rogelio Bolufe Izquierdo v. Melissa Ortiz, Warden, Torrance County Detention Facility; Joel Garia, Field Office Director, El Paso Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary of Homeland Security; and Pamela Jo Bondi, United States Attorney General

Summary

In this proposed findings and recommended disposition, a United States Magistrate Judge recommends granting the respondents’ motion to dismiss and denying Rogelio Bolufe Izquierdo’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. The recommendation concludes that the bond-hearing claim is moot, the Zadvydas and Jennings detention claims are insufficient, conditions-of-confinement claims are not cognizable in habeas, and challenges to the removal proceedings are premature and outside the district court’s jurisdiction.

Holdings

1. The claim that Petitioner was detained without a bond hearing was moot because the record showed that he had received a custody redetermination hearing, and Respondents did not dispute his eligibility for further bond review.
2. Petitioner could not obtain relief under Zadvydas because his removal order was not administratively final while his appeal to the BIA was pending, so the statutory removal period had not begun.
3. Jennings did not support Petitioner's claim that his continued detention was unlawful because Jennings rejected the argument that the applicable detention statutes require a bond hearing after six months or periodic bond hearings every six months.
4. Claims challenging the conditions of Petitioner's confinement were not cognizable in a habeas proceeding and had to be pursued, if at all, through a separate civil-rights action.
5. The district court could not review Petitioner's challenges to the merits and procedures of his removal proceedings because there was no final order of removal and review of a final removal order lies in the court of appeals rather than the district court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Petitioner's claim that he was detained without a bond hearing was moot because he had already received a custody redetermination hearing and remained eligible for further bond review.
2. Whether Petitioner's continued detention violated Zadvydas v. Davis or Jennings v. Rodriguez while his removal order was not administratively final.
3. Whether Petitioner's challenges to the conditions of his confinement were cognizable in a § 2241 habeas proceeding.
4. Whether the district court had jurisdiction to review alleged errors in Petitioner's immigration proceedings before a final order of removal and while his BIA appeal was pending.

Disposition

other