Joassaint Pitherson v. Christopher J. Larose, Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a noncitizen detained by ICE following a final order of removal. The court denied the petition, finding that the petitioner was subject to mandatory statutory detention during the 90-day removal period and that his due process arguments regarding his arrest were meritless.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus denied“Accordingly, the Petition is DENIED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), which mandates detention during the 90-day removal period. The record indicates the removal order became final on September 11, 2026, and the order was issued on September 28, 2026, placing the petitioner within the mandatory detention window. The court correctly noted that the *Zadvydas* framework applies only after the 90-day period expires. The court also correctly rejected the due process claim based on the existence of an administrative warrant and prior notice of the removal proceedings. |
Motion to lift the prohibition of transfer denied as moot“Respondents’ motion to lift the prohibition of transfer is DENIED as moot.” | agree with court Because the underlying petition for habeas corpus was denied, the ancillary motion to lift the prohibition of transfer (which typically allows the transfer of a detainee to another facility or jurisdiction for the purpose of removal or continued detention) is moot. The court's decision to deny it as moot is procedurally consistent with the denial of the main petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is legally sound. It correctly distinguishes between the mandatory detention period under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) and the discretionary detention period governed by *Zadvydas*. The court accurately applied the timeline from the record to determine that the petitioner was still within the 90-day mandatory detention period. The rejection of the due process claim is supported by the record facts regarding the administrative warrant and prior notice.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOASSAINT PITHERSON, Case No.: 26-cv-5288-RSH-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden, Otay [ECF Nos. 1, 5] Mesa Detention Center, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 On September 14, 2026, petitioner Joassaint Pitherson, proceeding pro se, filed a 19 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 20 1. Respondents have filed a return and a motion to lift the prohibition of transfer. ECF Nos. 21 4; 5. As set forth below, the Court denies the Petition. 22 Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 2241, provides that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may 23 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 24 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). A detainee bears the 25 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 26 treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). 27 On March 21, 2023, Petitioner, a citizen of Haiti, was released into the United States 28 on humanitarian parole. ECF No. 4-1. His parole status was terminated on March 19, 2024. 1 Id. On February 3, 2026, Petitioner was served with a notice to appear before an 2 immigration judge on March 23, 2026, to show why he should not be removed from the 3 United States. Id. On March 23, 2026, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner’s removal 4 for failure to attend his removal proceeding. ECF Nos. 4-4; 4-5. On May 4, 2026, the 5 immigration judge denied Petitioner’s motion to reopen, and Petitioner appealed that 6 decision to the BIA. ECF Nos. 4-5; 4-8. On August 22, 2026, Petitioner was arrested by 7 ICE officers and was served with an arrest warrant. ECF Nos. 4-6; 4-7. On September 11, 8 2026, the BIA denied Petitioner’s appeal and his removal order became final. ECF No. 4- 9 8. 10 Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a), the Attorney General “shall detain” a noncitizen during 11 the 90-day removal period. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1231(a), (b). After that removal period, the 12 framework established by the Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), 13 applies. In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court construed 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), the statutory 14 provision authorizing detention of a noncitizen subject to a final order of removal beyond 15 the 90-day removal period, and concluded that the “statute, read in light of the 16 Constitution’s demands, limits an alien’s post-removal-period detention to a period 17 reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States.” Id. at 18 689. The Court held that after a six-month “presumptively reasonable period of detention,” 19 “once the alien provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of 20 removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Government must respond with evidence 21 sufficient to rebut that showing.” Id. at 701. Because Petitioner’s removal period began 22 less than a month ago, he is in the 90-day removal period as provided by 8 U.S.C. § 1231. 23 His detention is at this time mandatory. Petitioner’s argument that he is entitled to a custody 24 redetermination is therefore without merit. See ECF No. 1 at 3, 7. 25 Petitioner also argues that he was arrested without notice in violation of his due 26 process and statutory rights. Id. at 7. However, as set forth above, Petitioner was arrested 27 only after his temporary protected status had expired, an immigration judge had ordered 28 him removed, and Petitioner’s motion to reopen had been denied; Petitioner was on notice 1 ||that he was subject to arrest. See ECF Nos. 4-1; 4-4; 4-5. Additionally, his arrest was 2 || supported by an administrative arrest warrant. ECF No. 4-7. Accordingly, these arguments 3 || are also without merit. 4 Petitioner is subject to mandatory statutory detention and provides no basis for this 5 || Court to conclude that Petitioner’s detention violates the U.S. Constitution or federal law. 6 || Accordingly, the Petition is DENIED. 7 Respondents’ motion to lift the prohibition of transfer is DENIED as moot. ECF No. 8 9 The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 28, 2026 fihut ¢ Lowe 3 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28