Jevaughn Jadane Rattray v. Warden, Folkston ICE Processing Center

Rattray · United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Waycross Division · February 10, 2026 · No. 5:26-cv-175

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia directed service of Jevaughn Jadane Rattray’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition on the Attorney General, the respondent warden, and the United States Attorney’s Office. The order requires the respondent to answer within seven business days, permits additional motions, establishes reply deadlines, and provides procedures for any motion seeking interim relief from immigration detention.

Holdings

  1. Because it did not plainly appear that Petitioner was not entitled to relief, the court ordered the Petition served on the Attorney General, the named Warden-Respondent, and the civil process clerk for the United States Attorney's Office.
  2. The Warden-Respondent must file an answer within seven business days, certify the true cause of detention, address the petition's allegations, show cause why relief should not be granted, and provide relevant available detention records, with prompt supplementation of later-obtained records.
  3. A petitioner seeking release from detention during the pendency of the habeas petition must demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of a substantial constitutional claim and extraordinary and exceptional circumstances making release necessary to preserve the effectiveness of the requested habeas relief.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the § 2241 petition should be dismissed at initial screening or served on the respondents.
  2. What response, record-production, and briefing deadlines should govern the habeas proceeding.
  3. What showing is required for interim release from detention while the habeas petition is pending.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (4)

  • Wilcox v. Ford, 813 F.2d 1140 (11th Cir. 1987)(followed)
  • Gomez v. United States, 899 F.2d 1124 (11th Cir. 1990)(followed)
  • Wilson v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., No. 17-10060-D, 2017 WL 11815408, at *1 (11th Cir. May 10, 2017)(followed)
  • Mapp v. Reno, 241 F.3d 221, 225 (2d Cir. 2001)(persuasive)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…