Doganer Sahin v. Jeremy Casey, Facility Administrator at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility; Daniel Brightman, Acting Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, Secretary of United States
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — On March 23, 2026, the Court 27 issued an order in which it: (1) set forth the factual background of this Petition; (2) found 28 that it had jurisdiction over this matter; (3) DENIED AS MOOT Petitioner’s request for 1 the Court to enjoin the Government from removing him to a third country without due 2 process protections; (4) found that, with respect to his Zadvydas claims, Petitioner satisfied 3 the “good reason to believe” standard; and (5) ordered the Government to rebut Petitioner’s 4 assertion that there is not a significant likelihood of Petitioner’s removal to a third country, 5 in the reasonably fo
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee challenging the legality of his continued detention following a final removal order. The court granted the petition and ordered the immediate release of the petitioner, finding that his detention exceeded the presumptively reasonable period established in Zadvydas v. Davis.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Order for Immediate Release“Accordingly, the Court will order Petitioner’s immediate release.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the framework from Zadvydas v. Davis, which establishes that detention beyond six months following a final order of removal is presumptively unreasonable. The government conceded in its supplemental briefing that removal efforts were unsuccessful and that there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. Given the finality of the removal order (July 15, 2025) and the date of the order (March 27, 2026), the petitioner had been detained for approximately eight months, exceeding the six-month presumptive limit. The government's concession effectively removed the factual dispute regarding the likelihood of removal, making the detention presumptively unreasonable and violating due process. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on the correct controlling precedent (Zadvydas). The court correctly identified the timeline, noting the finality of the removal order and the expiration of the six-month presumptive period. It properly accepted the government's concession regarding the lack of likelihood of removal, which is the key factual predicate for granting relief under Zadvydas. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for the legal question presented.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DOGANER SAHIN Case No.: 3:26-cv-1078-JES-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 14 JEREMY CASEY, Facility Administrator at the Imperial Regional Detention 15 Facility; DANIEL BRIGHTMAN, Acting [ECF No. 1] 16 Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; TODD 17 LYONS, Acting Director, U.S. 18 Immigration and Customs Enforcement; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of United 19 States Department of Homeland Security; 20 and PAM BONDI, Attorney General of the United States, 21 Respondents. 22 23 Before the Court is Petitioner Doganer Sahin’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of 24 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Pursuant to the Court’s Order to 25 Show Cause, (ECF No. 2), Respondents (the “Government”) filed the Response, (ECF No. 26 4, (“Res.”)), and Petitioner filed the Traverse. (ECF No. 5). On March 23, 2026, the Court 27 issued an order in which it: (1) set forth the factual background of this Petition; (2) found 28 that it had jurisdiction over this matter; (3) DENIED AS MOOT Petitioner’s request for 1 the Court to enjoin the Government from removing him to a third country without due 2 process protections; (4) found that, with respect to his Zadvydas claims, Petitioner satisfied 3 the “good reason to believe” standard; and (5) ordered the Government to rebut Petitioner’s 4 assertion that there is not a significant likelihood of Petitioner’s removal to a third country, 5 in the reasonably foreseeable future. Sahin v. Casey, No. 3:26-CV-1078-JES-BJW, 2026 6 WL 800558, at *1-3 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2026). On March 25, 2026, Respondents filed 7 supplemental briefing. ECF No. 7. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 8 the Petition. 9 I. LEGAL STANDARD 10 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 11 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art I, § 9, cl. 2). 12 “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of that 13 custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 14 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). A court may grant a writ of 15 habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates to be in custody in violation of the 16 Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Traditionally, “the writ of habeas 17 corpus has served as a means of reviewing the legality of Executive detention, and it is in 18 that context that its protections have been strongest.” I.N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 301 19 (2001). Accordingly, challenges to immigration-related detention are within the purview 20 of a district court's habeas jurisdiction. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001); see 21 also Demore v. Kim, 538 U.S. 510, 517 (2003). 22 II. DISCUSSION 23 In the Government’s Response, it correctly notes that Petitioner’s removal order 24 became administratively final on July 15, 2025. ECF No. 7 at 1. Therefore, the six month 25 presumptively reasonable period ended on January 15, 2026—not that it will end on April 26 13, 2026, as indicated by the Court in its Order for Supplemental briefing. Id.; Sahin, 2026 27 WL 800558, at *3. The Government also informed the Court that its efforts to remove 28 Petitioner have been unsuccessful. ECF No. 7 at 2 Thereby conceding that there is no | significant likelihood of Petitioner’s removal in the reasonably foreseeable future. /d. 2 || Pursuant to this information, the Court finds that Respondents subjecting Petitioner to his 3 || current eight-month detention exceeds the six-month presumptively reasonable period set 4 ||forth in Zadvydas, which violates Petitioner’s due process rights. 533 U.S. at 699-701. 5 || Accordingly, the Court will order Petitioner’s immediate release. 6 Ht. CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons discussed above: 8 (1) The Court GRANTS Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 9 US.C. § 2241; 10 (2) Respondents are ORDERED to IMMEDIATELY release Petitioner 11 from custody, subject to conditions as determined by Respondents; 12 (3) The Parties are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report on or before 13 March 31, 2026, confirming that Petitioner has been released; and 14 (4) The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: March 27, 2026 18 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 23