Emmanuel McSweeney v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Facility, et al.

McSweeney · United States District Court for the Southern District of California · October 24, 2025 · No. 3:25-cv-02488-RBM-DEB

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted Emmanuel McSweeney’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court held that ICE violated McSweeney’s due process rights and its own regulations by failing to provide adequate notice of the reasons for revoking his release and by delaying his required informal interview for approximately six months. The court ordered his immediate release subject to his preexisting order of supervision and denied his motion for a temporary restraining order as moot.

Holdings

  1. Section 1252(g) and Rauda preclude jurisdiction over Petitioner's claim seeking to stay removal while his motion to reconsider and reopen was pending, but they do not bar habeas jurisdiction over claims challenging the legality and manner of his detention.
  2. ICE did not violate 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b) by seeking removal to Haiti without completing removal to The Bahamas because ICE had sought to remove Petitioner to The Bahamas and the Bahamian government was unwilling to accept him.
  3. ICE violated Petitioner's due process rights by failing to comply with the notice and prompt informal-interview requirements of 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4(l) and 241.13(i) when it revoked his release and re-detained him.
  4. ICE's regulatory violations prejudiced interests protected by the regulations and rendered Petitioner's detention unlawful, warranting his release.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) deprived the district court of jurisdiction over Petitioner's challenges to his immigration detention and the manner in which ICE executed the removal order.
  2. Whether ICE was required to attempt removal to The Bahamas before Haiti under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2).
  3. Whether ICE violated Petitioner's due process rights and its own regulations, 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4(l) and 241.13(i), by revoking his release without adequate notice and without a prompt informal interview.
  4. Whether the regulatory violations prejudiced Petitioner and warranted release from custody.

Disposition

writ_granted

Cases Cited (29)

  • Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004)(followed)
  • Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)(followed)
  • Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 439 (2007)(followed)
  • Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998)(followed)
  • Reno v. American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, 525 U.S. 471, 482 (1999)(followed)
  • Rauda v. Jennings, 55 F.4th 772, 776-779 (9th Cir. 2022)(applied)
  • Louangmilith v. Noem, 2025 WL 288178, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2025)(followed)
  • Ceesay v. Kurzdorfer, 781 F. Supp. 3d 137 (W.D.N.Y. 2025)(followed)
  • Sanchez v. LaRose, 2025 WL 2770629, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2025)(followed)
  • Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 294 (2018)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 29.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…