Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KABA DIAWARA Case No.: 26-cv-2025-BJC-AHG 10 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION OF HABEAS CORPUS 11 v. 12 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, et [ECF No. 14] 13 al. 14 Respondents. 15 16 Before the Court is Kaba Diawara’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for a Writ of Habeas 17 Corpus that was filed on March 31, 2026. ECF No. 1. On April 20, 2026, Petitioner filed 18 an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. 7. Respondents filed a Return 19 to the Petition, ECF No. 10, and Petitioner filed a Traverse. ECF No. 12. For the reasons 20 set forth below, the Petition is GRANTED. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 Petitioner is a native and citizen of Guinea who entered the United States without 23 inspection and was apprehended upon entry on June 13, 2025. ECF No. 10 at 2. On August 24 18, 2025, Petitioner was issued a Notice to Appear, thereby initiating immigration 25 proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Id. On January 6, 2026, an 26 Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordered Petitioner to be removed to Uganda. Id. Petitioner did 27 not file an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the IJ’s order became final on 28 1 February 5, 2026. Id; ECF No. 10 at 4. Petitioner has continued to remain in detention 2 since his arrival on June 13, 2025. See ECF No. 13 at 2. For the following reasons, the 3 Court GRANTS the Petition. 4 II. LEGAL STANDARD 5 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United 6 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl. 7 2). “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of 8 that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal 9 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a 10 district court has the authority to grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in 11 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 12 § 2241(c)(3). The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in 13 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 14 2241(c)(3). 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 A. Detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231 17 Section 1231 governs the arrest and detention of noncitizens subject to a final 18 removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231. It directs the Attorney General to effectuate removal 19 “within a period of 90 days,” known as the “removal period,” during which detention is 20 authorized. § 1231(a)(1)–(2). In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court clarified that detention 21 beyond the removal period is presumptively lawful for up to six months; after that, a 22 noncitizen may make a prima facie case for relief by sharing “good reason to believe that 23 there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,” at which 24 point the burden shifts to “the Government [to] respond with evidence sufficient to rebut 25 that showing.” 533. U.S. at 701. 26 The Court finds that Petitioner has satisfied his burden under Zadvydas. Petitioner 27 was ordered removed on January 6, 2026, ECF No. 10 at 2, and the six-month presumptive 28 detention period has expired. While Respondent notes efforts from ERO to obtain travel 1 documents, it has not shown that Uganda has agreed to or will agree to accept the Petitioner. 2 generally ECF No. 10 at 2-3. The Court finds that mere good-faith efforts are 3 ||insufficient under Zadvydas. See Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1081-82 (9th 4 ||Cir. 2006) (holding that the government lacked authority to detain an individual 5 indefinitely under § 1231 where removal was not reasonably foreseeable despite ongoing 6 || diplomatic efforts). Continued detention must be justified by a significant likelihood of 7 ||removal within a reasonably foreseeable period, and Respondents have failed to meet that 8 || standard. 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s continued 11 |/detention is unlawful. Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. Respondents 12 immediately release Petitioner. The Clerk of Court shall close this matter. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 || Dated: September 14, 2026 16 18 19 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28