Gevorg Muradyan v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center

Summary

The court denied without prejudice Gevorg Muradyan’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his continued detention after a final order of removal. Applying Zadvydas v. Davis, the court held that Muradyan had been detained for less than the six-month presumptively reasonable period and had not met his initial burden. The court also concluded that his medical-care claims were not properly raised in a habeas petition and could instead be pursued in a civil rights action.

Holdings

1. Section 1252 did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction because § 2241 habeas proceedings remain available for statutory and constitutional challenges to post-removal-period detention.
2. Muradyan was not entitled to habeas relief because he had been detained for less than the six-month presumptively reasonable period recognized in Zadvydas.
3. Allegations concerning insufficient medical care did not support release through a habeas petition because such claims concern conditions of confinement rather than the validity or duration of confinement.

Questions Presented

1. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252 deprived the district court of subject matter jurisdiction over Muradyan's § 2241 challenge to post-removal-period detention.
2. Whether Muradyan's continued detention violated 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) under Zadvydas v. Davis before the six-month presumptively reasonable removal period had expired.
3. Whether alleged inadequate medical care supported release through a habeas petition.

Disposition

dismissed