Issaka Nii Doodo Abubakar Saddick v. Jeremy Casey, Warden, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee who argued his detention had been unreasonably prolonged and that he was denied a bond hearing. The court granted the petition, ordering a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge within 14 days where the government must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the petitioner is a danger or flight risk.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to the extent it argues detention has been arbitrarily and unreasonably prolonged and ordering a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge.“Hence, the Court GRANTS the Petition to the extent it requests that a bond hearing be held before an Immigration Judge.” | agree with court The court's decision is supported by the government's concession that the detention period (over 16 months) is arbitrarily and unreasonably prolonged. The court correctly identifies that prolonged detention without a bond hearing raises due process concerns under the Ninth Circuit precedent cited. The specific relief ordered (bond hearing with government burden of proof) aligns with the government's concession and standard due process requirements in this context. |
Ordering that the Department of Homeland Security is prohibited from invoking an automatic stay under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19()(2) to defeat the Immigration Judge’s bond determination.“The Court orders that the Department of Homeland Security is prohibited from invoking an automatic stay under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19()(2) to defeat the Immigration Judge’s bond determination.” | agree with court This is a specific procedural directive to ensure the bond hearing is effective. While the order does not provide extensive legal reasoning for this specific injunction, it is a reasonable measure to prevent the government from circumventing the court's order for a bond hearing, which is the core relief granted. It follows logically from the grant of the habeas petition for a bond hearing. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and relies heavily on the government's concession regarding the length of detention. It correctly cites binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Rodriguez v. Marin) to support the due process argument. The reasoning is sufficient for the specific relief granted, which is largely based on the parties' agreement on the facts and the legal standard. It does not need to address complex legal disputes because the government conceded the core issue.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ISSAKA NII DOODO ABUBAKAR Case No. 26-cv-01984-BAS-VET SADDICK, 11 ORDER GRANTING AMENDED Petitioner, 12 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS v. CORPUS (ECF No. 8) 13 JEREMY CASEY, WARDEN, et al., 14 Respondents. 15 16 17 18 Petitioner Issaka Nii Doodo Abubakar Saddick filed an Amended Habeas Petition 19 pursuant to Section 2241, claiming his immigration detention has been arbitrarily and 20 unreasonably prolonged and that he was improperly denied a bond hearing. (ECF No. 8.) 21 Petitioner requests outright release, a bond hearing from the district court, or a bond hearing 22 before an Immigration Judge with certain guardrails. (Id.) The Government concedes that, 23 given the Court’s prior rulings, Petitioner’s detention has been arbitrarily and unreasonably 24 prolonged and that he is entitled to a bond hearing where the Government would bear the 25 burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner is either a danger 26 to the community or a risk of flight. (ECF No. 10.) For the reasons stated below, the Court 27 GRANTS the Petition to the extent Petitioner argues his detention has been arbitrarily and 28 unreasonably prolonged and orders a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. 1 I. LEGAL STANDARD 2 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 3 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004). “The traditional function of the 4 writ is to secure release from illegal custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 5 (1973). A court may grant a writ of habeas corpus to a petitioner who demonstrates he or 6 she is in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It 7 applies to non-citizens detained within the United States. Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 8 687 (2001). Since Petitioner is in custody and since he is seeking release from custody, he 9 has standing to pursue this Petition. 10 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 11 Petitioner, a citizen of Ghana, entered the United States seeking asylum on 12 December 21, 2024. (ECF No. 8.) On July 31, 2025, an Immigration Judge granted 13 withholding of removal but denied his asylum claim. (Id.) Petitioner appealed this ruling 14 to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). (Id.) On March 6, 2026, the BIA sent the 15 case back to the Immigration Judge for retrial. (Id.) As of April 24, 2026, no future hearing 16 has been set. (Id., Ex. B.) Petitioner has been in custody over sixteen months without a 17 bond hearing. 18 III. ANALYSIS 19 The Court agrees that immigration detention without a bond hearing can be deemed 20 arbitrarily and unreasonably prolonged and thus a violation of the detainee’s due process 21 rights. See, e.g., Rodriguez v. Marin, 909 F.3d 252, 256 (9th Cir. 2018) (“We have grave 22 doubts that any statute that allows for arbitrary prolonged detention without any process is 23 constitutional or that those who founded our democracy precisely to protect against the 24 government’s arbitrary deprivation of liberty would have thought so.”). The Government 25 agrees that sixteen months is an arbitrarily and unreasonably prolonged period of time for 26 Petitioner to be detained. Hence, the Court GRANTS the Petition to the extent it requests 27 that a bond hearing be held before an Immigration Judge. 28 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, the Court issues the following writ: 3 The Court ORDERS a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge for Issaka 4 Nii Doodo Abubakar Saddick (A#249-140-473) within 14 days of the date of this Order. At that bond hearing, the Government shall have the burden of 5 proving by clear and convincing evidence that Petitioner poses a danger to the 6 community or a risk of flight if released on bond. The Court orders that the Department of Homeland Security is prohibited from invoking an automatic 7 stay under 8 C.F.R. § 1003.19()(2) to defeat the Immigration Judge’s bond determination. Ifno bond hearing is held within 14 days, Petitioner is ordered released forthwith. 9 10 || The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 14 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 15 United States District Court 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Qe