Jose Fabian Guaman Chogllo v. Warden, Folkston ICE Processing Facility

United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Waycross Division · January 12, 2026 · No. 5:26-cv-6

Summary

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia orders service of a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition filed by an immigration detainee against the Warden of the Folkston ICE Processing Facility. The order sets deadlines for the respondent’s answer and the petitioner’s reply, establishes procedures for any motion for interim relief, and requires production of relevant detention records.

Holdings

  1. Because it did not plainly appear that petitioner was not entitled to relief, the court ordered the petition served rather than dismissing it at the screening stage.
  2. The United States Marshal must serve the petition and order on the Attorney General, the named Warden-Respondent, and the civil process clerk for the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Georgia; the Warden must file an answer within seven business days addressing the allegations, certifying the true cause of detention, and showing cause why relief should not be granted.
  3. A petitioner seeking release from detention while a habeas petition is pending must show 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 because it plainly appeared that petitioner was not entitled to relief.
  2. What service and response procedures should govern the habeas petition.
  3. What showing is required for a petitioner seeking release from immigration detention or other interim relief 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…