Mohamed Hussein Moustapha-Dagmash v. Christopher Larose, Senior Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, et. al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 28 In light of Respondents’ concession that Petitioner is entitled to relief because they 1 unable to ascertain facts to establish there is a significant likelihood of removal in the 2 ||reasonably foreseeable future, the Court finds Petitioner is entitled to release pursuant to 3 || Zadvydas.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Benjamin J. Cheeks (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a stateless noncitizen challenging his continued detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) and the Fifth Amendment. The court granted the petition, ordering the petitioner's immediate release under conditions set by the government and enjoining re-detention without proper procedures.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus granted“The petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court relied on the respondents' concession that the petitioner was entitled to release because they could not establish a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, which aligns with the holding in Zadvydas v. Davis. |
Release ordered under conditions set by respondents“Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner under conditions set by Respondents under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3).” | agree with court The court declined to limit the conditions of supervision (such as GPS monitoring) asserted by the petitioner, citing its lack of authority to manage ICE supervision programs and relying on Ba v. Lyons. |
Injunction against re-detention without procedures“Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner without following all applicable statutory and regulatory procedures.” | agree with court This is a standard protective measure in habeas corpus orders to prevent the government from circumventing the court's release order. |
Request for attorneys' fees denied without prejudice“Petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees is DENIED without prejudice to Petitioner filing an appropriate application for fees.” | agree with court The court denied the fee request likely because it was not properly briefed or filed as a separate motion, but allowed the petitioner to refile. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound and relies on the respondents' concession to grant the habeas petition. It correctly cites Zadvydas for the standard of release and Ba v. Lyons for the limitation on judicial oversight of supervision conditions. However, it is a short order that does not explicitly detail the procedural history or the specific statutory arguments beyond the concession, making it a 'sound with gaps' assessment in terms of comprehensive reasoning, though the result is defensible.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MOHAMED HUSSEIN MOUSTAPHA- Case No.: 26-cv-3317-BJC-JAC DAGHMASH, 12 ORDER GRANTING PETITION FOR Petitioner, WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 13 v. 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, Senior 15 Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center, 16 et. al., 17 Respondents. 18 19 On May 29, 2026, Petitioner Mohamed Hussein Moustapha-Dagmash, a stateless 20 noncitizen originally from Saudi Arabia, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Petitioner asserts his continued detention 22 violates 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) as construed in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), and 23 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Respondents filed a return on 24 June 10, 2026, in which they acknowledge Petitioner “is entitled to be released from 25 custody subject to conditions of supervision.” ECF No. 4 at 2. Petitioner filed a traverse 26 on June 12, 2026, contending he should be released without GPS or other electronic 27 location monitoring. 28 In light of Respondents’ concession that Petitioner is entitled to relief because they 1 unable to ascertain facts to establish there is a significant likelihood of removal in the 2 ||reasonably foreseeable future, the Court finds Petitioner is entitled to release pursuant to 3 || Zadvydas. The Court, however is not empowered “to manage ICE supervision programs” 4 || and, therefore, will not limit the conditions Respondents may impose pursuant to applicable 5 ||procedures. Ba v. Lyons, 2026 WL 218936, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2026) (citing 28 6 |/U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 7 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 8 l. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED. 9 2. Respondents shall immediately release Petitioner under conditions set by 10 Respondents under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(3). 11 3. Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner without following 12 all applicable statutory and regulatory procedures. 13 4. Petitioner’s request for attorneys’ fees is DENIED without prejudice to 14 Petitioner filing an appropriate application for fees. 15 5. The Clerk of Court shall close this matter. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 || Dated: July 7, 2026 18 20 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28