Summary
The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana denied Aziz Mukhtarov’s motions for a stay of removal, immediate release, access to counsel and medical evaluation, and expedited review. The court held that Mukhtarov had not shown a substantial likelihood of success because the Board of Immigration Appeals had dismissed his appeal, making his removal order final and authorizing detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). The court also concluded that transfer, disclosure, and excessive-force claims did not warrant habeas or injunctive relief and that conditions-of-confinement claims should be brought in a civil rights action.
Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, Alexandria Division
Decision date
May 5, 2026
Docket number
1:25-CV-02127 SEC P
Disposition
other
Questions Presented
- Whether Mukhtarov was entitled to a stay of removal or transfer as preliminary injunctive relief after the BIA dismissed his appeal and his removal order became final.
- Whether the court should prohibit or condition transfers between ICE detention facilities and require disclosure of Mukhtarov's location.
- Whether allegations of excessive force and coercion concerning detention conditions could support relief in a § 2241 habeas proceeding.
- Whether Mukhtarov was entitled to immediate release, access to counsel and medical evaluation, or other emergency relief.
Holdings
- A stay of removal was unwarranted because Mukhtarov failed to show a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, and federal courts lack jurisdiction over claims connected directly and immediately with the Attorney General's execution of a final removal order.
- Mukhtarov was not entitled to an injunction prohibiting or conditioning his transfer because he failed to establish a likelihood of success or actual interference with his ability to litigate, and a transfer restriction would interfere with the government's ability to execute the removal order.
- Claims challenging the conditions of confinement, including excessive force and coercion by detention staff, must be brought through a civil-rights action rather than a habeas petition and do not warrant release from custody.
- Mukhtarov was not entitled to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction because he failed to satisfy the required elements, particularly substantial likelihood of success on the merits and a sufficient showing of irreparable harm.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…