United States District Court, D. Minnesota
H., pro se.
Voss, Ann M. Bildtsen, & Pamela Marentette, United States
Attorney for Respondents.
SECOND AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on the objections
(âObjectionsâ) [Doc. No. 17] of Petitioner Joshua H. to
Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung's Report and
Recommendation (âR&Râ) [Doc. No. 16] recommending that
this Court deny Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. Â§ 2241 [Doc. No. 1] without prejudice.
For the reasons stated below, the Court overrules
Petitioner's objections, adopts the R&R in full, and
denies the Petition without prejudice.
is originally from, and is a citizen of, Liberia. (Decl. of
Angela Minner, Ex. A [Doc. No. 7-1] at 1.) On March 3, 1999,
Petitioner entered the United States as a refugee. (Decl. of
Angela Minner [Doc. No. 7] ¶ 5.) Three years later,
Petitioner became a lawful permanent resident. (Id.
¶ 6.) In 2009, Petitioner was convicted of second-degree
assault, which led Immigrations and Custom Enforcement
(“ICE”) officials to detain Petitioner and
commence removal proceedings against him. (Id.
¶ 13.) In March 2010, an Immigration Judge ordered
Petitioner removed to Liberia and Petitioner did not appeal
that decision. (Id. ¶ 14.)
2010, Petitioner was released on an Order of Supervision as
the Embassy of Liberia was not conducting interviews or
issuing travel documents to ICE on a regular basis.
(Id. ¶ 15.) Five years later, Petitioner was
convicted of a number of criminal offenses, including an
October 2015 conviction for driving while impaired
(“DWI”). (Id. ¶ 16-25.)
Petitioner served his sentence and was released from prison
on April 16, 2018, he was detained by ICE and served with a
notice of revocation of release. (Id. ¶ 27.) He
has continued to be held in immigration detention since his
DWI term of incarceration expired. (R&R at 3.) ICE has
requested travel documents from the Liberian Embassy and
followed up at least once every 30 days regarding the status
of those documents. (Decl. of Angela Minner ¶ 28.)
August 2018, a Liberian Embassy official interviewed
Petitioner. (Id. ¶ 32.) Subsequently, Embassy
officials requested information concerning an administrative
claim he made to the Minnesota Department of Corrections in
connection with an injury he suffered in custody.
(Id.) Embassy officials then indicated that they
would be unlikely to issue travel documents while the claim
was pending. (Id.) The claim was formally denied on
May 7, 2019 and ICE notified the Embassy of that decision
soon thereafter. (Resp.'s Letter to Mag. Judge [Doc. No.
14] at 3.)
indicated that Petitioner's travel documents are likely
to be issued soon and there is a significant likelihood of
removal in the near future. (Id. at 4.) ICE is
continuing to regularly contact the Embassy officials to
secure travel documents for Petitioner. (Decl. of Angela
Minner ¶ 41.)
filed the instant Petition on December 10, 2018. In it, he
argues that he has been held for too long in immigration
detention and requests immediate release. (Def.'s §
2241 Petition at 2.) On May 29, 2019, Magistrate Judge Leung
recommended that the Petition be denied without prejudice.
(R&R at 7.) Petitioner timely objected. On June 28, 2019,
Respondent replied to Plaintiff's Objections [Doc. No.
issuance of an R&R, a party may “serve and file
specific written objections to the proposed findings and
recommendations.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). “The
objections should specify the portion of the magistrate
judge's [R&R] to which objections are made and
provide a basis for those objections.” Mayer v.
Walvatne, No. 07-cv-1958 (JRT/RLE), 2008 WL 4527774, at
*2 (D. Minn. Sept. 28, 2008). Then, the district court will
review de novo those portions of the R&R to
which an objection is made, and it “may accept, reject,
or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3); D. Minn.
person detained by the government may file a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus to challenge the legality of his
confinement and, if successful, obtain his release. See
Preiser v. Rodriguez,411 U.S. 475, 485 (1973). Under 28
U.S.C. § 2241, federal courts have jurisdiction to hear
habeas challenges to the lawfulness of immigration-related
detentions. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687
(2001). A district court may not review a discretionary
decision made ...