Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_19-cv-01459/USCOURTS-alnd-4_19-cv-01459-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federa

---

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MIDDLE DIVISION

SHIEKH NYANG,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM BARR, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

4:19-cv-01459-RDP-HNJ

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Magistrate Judge filed a report and recommendation on December 6, 

2019, recommending that this petition for habeas corpus relief filed pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 2241 be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 17). Petitioner filed timely 

objections. (Doc. 24). 

Petitioner asserts that his sole challenge relates to the detainer underlying his 

arrest and subsequent custody. (Doc. 24 at 6). He restates his argument that the 

“287(g) program ... relied upon error ridden databases that cannot be used to 

establish probable cause for arrest and removability [and] constitutes an egregious 

violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights....” such that he must be 

released from custody.1 (Id., at 15). Petitioner further argues that because he 

1 To the extent Petitioner challenges his arrest by Georgia state officials in Cobb County, Georgia

(see doc. 24 at 16), that claim has been raised in Petitioner’s civil rights action filed in the Northern 

District of Georgia. See Nyang v. Olens, et al., case no.: 1:19-cv-4406-LMM-CCB (N.D. Ga. Sept. 

30 2019). 

FILED

 2020 Feb-04 PM 01:18

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:19-cv-01459-RDP-HNJ Document 26 Filed 02/04/20 Page 1 of 5
2

received DACA protection from “October 10, 2012 until 2015,” ICE officials did 

not have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to issue a detainer for him. (Doc. 

24 at 17). However, the legitimacy of Petitioner’s initial arrest is not properly 

brought in this habeas action. See e.g., INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1040 

(1984) (“the mere fact of an illegal arrest has no bearing on a subsequent deportation 

proceeding”); Ballesteros v. Ashcroft, 452 F.3d 1153, 1160 (10th Cir. 2006) 

(recognizing that the remedy for illegal arrest lies in a Bivens action and not within 

habeas relief.) 

Petitioner next asserts that, outside of enumerated offenses and national 

security risks, an immigration detainer may only issue if an individual is already 

subject to a final order of removal. (Doc. 24 at 17-18). Petitioner recognizes that a 

final order of removal was entered against him on July 15, 2014, “before the issuance 

of two of his ICE detainers.” (Id., at 18; see also Doc. 12-2 at 3). Therefore, a final 

order of removal existed prior to his September 17, 2017, arrest in Cobb County, his 

subsequent conviction, and his transfer to ICE custody based on an ICE detainer in 

August 2018. 

Petitioner argues the court should find in his favor on his Fourth Amendment 

claim (Doc. 24 at 21) and cites Gonzalez v. ICE, -- F.Supp.3d--, 2019 WL 4734579

Case 4:19-cv-01459-RDP-HNJ Document 26 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 5
3

(C.D. Calif. Sept. 27, 2019). The Gonzalez case is not binding on this court and is

based on a different law and a different set of facts than those presented here.

2

 

To the extent Petitioner challenges the failure to release him on bond after his 

October 21, 2013, arrest because of the ICE detainer (Doc. 24 at 22-23), that claim 

is moot. Petitioner does not assert that he is still held on the same charges from 

2013, nor that he is detained based on the 2014 ICE detainer. See e.g., Bohannon v. 

Capozza, 2019 WL 367037, *2 (W.D. Penn, Jan 30, 2019) (“the detainer that 

Petitioner alleged to have been unlawful and to have caused him to be illegally held 

in custody ... is no longer in existence, and hence, no matter what the Court rules 

concerning the validity of the detainer, it is eminently clear that this habeas petition 

is now moot and should be dismissed....”), citing Ogunde v. Holder, 563 F. App’x 

237, 237 (4th Cir. 2014) (holding once a detainer is no longer in effect, the appeal is 

moot).

Petitioner’s argument (Doc. 24 at 26-27) that detainers in general violate the 

Fifth Amendment’s due process clause on both procedural and substantive grounds 

fares no better because, again, Petitioner is not subject to a current detainer. 

Moreover, the decision to detain an alien for purposes of securing his removal falls 

2 That case, brought by two United States citizens on behalf of a class, addressed their detention 

based on ICE databases misidentifying them as deportable aliens. See Gonzalez, 2014 WL 

12605368, *2 (C.D. Calif. Jul. 28, 2014) and Gonzalez, 2019 WL 4734579, *13 (C.D. Calif. Sept. 

27, 2019). Petitioner here does not set forth any evidence that he is a United States citizen or that, 

but for database errors, he would not have been detained. 

Case 4:19-cv-01459-RDP-HNJ Document 26 Filed 02/04/20 Page 3 of 5
4

within the jurisdictional bar of 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g). See Alvarez v. U.S. ICE, 818 

F.3d 1194, 1203-04 (11th Cir. 2016). As previously noted, a final order of removal 

for the petitioner issued in 2014. It is that final order, and not the 2018 detainer, 

which is the cause of Petitioner’s current detention. 

Petitioner’s claim that ICE detainers violate the Tenth Amendment (Doc. 24 

at 30-31) also lacks merit. Each of the courts to consider the issue have found 

detainers to be requests. See e.g., City & Cty of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 

1225, 1241 n. 7 (9th Cir. 2018) (citing Galarza v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634, 643 (3d 

Cir. 2014)); Lopez-Aguilar v. Marion Co. Sheriff’s Dept., 296 F.Supp.3d 959, 974 

(S.D.Ind. 2017) (ICE detainers invite state cooperation but do not direct the state to 

do anything); Moreno v. Napolitano, 2014 WL 4911938, *6 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 30, 2014) 

(ICE detainers are not mandatory directives to state and local LEAs). The court 

agrees with the analyses of these courts on that issue.

After a de novo consideration of the entire file in this action, including the 

report and recommendation and Petitioner’s objections thereto, the court 

OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections, ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge’s report and 

ACCEPTS his recommendation. The court finds that the petition for writ of habeas 

corpus is due to be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

A separate order will be entered.

Case 4:19-cv-01459-RDP-HNJ Document 26 Filed 02/04/20 Page 4 of 5
5

DONE and ORDERED this February 4, 2020.

_________________________________

R. DAVID PROCTOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:19-cv-01459-RDP-HNJ Document 26 Filed 02/04/20 Page 5 of 5