Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_19-cv-01643/USCOURTS-alnd-4_19-cv-01643-0/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

---

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

MIDDLE DIVISION

KOLAWOLE MONDAY ONENESE,

Petitioner,

v.

WILLIAM BARR,

Respondent.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 4:19-cv-01643-KOB-JHE

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on the Respondent’s motion to consolidate, or, in the 

alternative, to dismiss Petitioner Kolawole Monday Onenese’s filing, which has been construed as 

a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. (Doc. 7, doc. 1). The magistrate judge 

filed a report on December 17, 2019, recommending that the court grant the Respondent’s motion 

and dismiss the petition as duplicative. (Doc. 8). The Respondent filed objections to the magistrate 

judge’s report and recommendation. (Doc. 16).

Because this case has a relatively complicated history, some background information 

provides helpful context. In March of 2019, prior to filing the instant action, the Petitioner filed

in this court a petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his 

continued detention by immigration authorities and demanding his release on an order of 

supervision. (See Onenese Kolawole Monday v. Barr, No. 4:19-cv-0365-LSC-TMP, doc. 1 (N.D. 

Ala.) (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6); Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001))). In his § 2241 

petition, the Petitioner argued that he was being unlawfully detained because the time for removal 

following the entry of a final removal order against him had elapsed. In that petition, the Petitioner 

FILED

 2020 Mar-13 AM 09:15

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:19-cv-01643-KOB-JHE Document 17 Filed 03/13/20 Page 1 of 4
2

detailed an occasion on January 9, 2019, in which he resisted ICE’s attempt to force him to board 

a plane to deport him to his home country of Nigeria. 

The government filed a response in that case, arguing that the Petitioner’s continued 

detention resulted from his obstruction of the removal process. (Onenese Kolawole Monday v. 

Barr, No. 4:19-cv-0365-LSC-TMP, doc. 3). The response stated that the Petitioner would remain 

in noncompliance with ICE, and thus in obstruction of his removal process, as long as he continued 

trying to thwart ICE’s removal efforts. The Petitioner filed a reply, arguing, in part, that he was 

not actually noncompliant with ICE’s invalid attempts to deport him. (Id., doc. 14, doc. 16). That 

case remains pending in front of Judge Coogler. 

On October 8, 2019, the Petitioner filed this action, which he titled “Petition for A Writ of 

Mandamus.” (Doc. 1). In his filing, the Petitioner alleges that ICE has abused its discretion by 

issuing repetitive notices of failure to comply with removal efforts, based in part on the January 9, 

2019, incident. (Doc. 1 at 3, 6) (citing to 8 C.F.R. § 241.1(g)). The Petitioner requests that the 

court require ICE to cease issuing “cumulative, non-prohibitive, and monotonous notice[s] of 

failure to comply.” (Doc. 1 at 5). He argues that ICE only issues the notices to gain an unfair 

advantage in his pending § 2241 case. He further asserts that ICE’s actions are undermining his 

ability to be released on parole and states that the court should compel ICE to exercise its discretion 

and release him from custody. 

After the magistrate judge entered an order to show cause, the Respondent filed a motion 

to consolidate this case with the case pending in front of Judge Coogler, treating both cases as 

§ 2241 petitions addressing the same facts. (Doc. 7). Alternatively, the Respondent requested that 

the instant case be dismissed as duplicative of the Petitioner’s prior action pending in front of 

Judge Coogler. 

Case 4:19-cv-01643-KOB-JHE Document 17 Filed 03/13/20 Page 2 of 4
3

The magistrate judge entered a report, construing the Petitioner’s filing as a § 2241 petition 

and recommending that the case be dismissed as duplicative. (Doc. 8). The report focuses in large 

part on the fact that both filings seek release from federal custody. 

The Petitioner filed objections to the report and recommendation, arguing that his filing in 

the instant case is different from his other pending action because this action merely seeks to 

prevent ICE from serving notices of failure to comply with removal efforts. (Doc. 16). However, 

even the Petitioner admits that the two actions are “overlapping” and that the “center piece of 

Respondent’s petition to Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus was the unsubstantiated 

allegation of failure to comply.” (Id. at 2). He argues, however, that his instant filing is narrower

in scope than his pending § 2241 petition. He also asserts that the “major prayer” for relief of his 

self-described mandamus petition is “to stop the abuse of discretion by ICE in his appraisal system 

which is based on compulsive issuance of notice of failure.” (Id. at 6). 

The court OVERRULES the Petitioner’s objections. “The common-law writ of 

mandamus, as codified in 28 U.S.C. § 1361, is intended to provide a remedy for a plaintiff only if 

he has exhausted all other avenues of relief and only if the defendant owes him a clear 

nondiscretionary duty.” Heckler v. Ringer, 466 U.S. 602, 616 (1984). The Petitioner cannot meet 

either requirement to justify this extraordinary remedy. First, he clearly has not exhausted all other 

avenues of relief because his admittedly overlapping § 2241 petition remains pending. Resolution 

of that petition in accordance with Eleventh Circuit precedent will necessarily include examination 

of his January 9, 2019, refusal to board the plane, his ongoing litigation, and the notices of failure 

to comply with removal—the same issues the Petitioner raises in this action. Second, the Petitioner 

does not allege that ICE owes him a clear nondiscretionary duty; in fact, he claims that ICE is 

abusing its discretion. Therefore, especially considering that the Petitioner’s filing requests his 

Case 4:19-cv-01643-KOB-JHE Document 17 Filed 03/13/20 Page 3 of 4
4

release from federal custody, the filing more closely resembles a § 2241 petition for a writ of 

habeas corpus than a mandamus petition. Because the instant construed § 2241 petition deals with 

facts encompassed by the § 2241 petition pending in front Judge Coogler, the court agrees with 

the magistrate judge that the instant filing should be dismissed as duplicative. 

Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the court file, 

including the report and recommendation, and the objections thereto, the court hereby ADOPTS 

the magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS the recommendation. 

Accordingly, the court GRANTS the Respondent’s motion to dismiss and DISMISSES 

this action as duplicative. To the extent Onenese wishes to amend his petition in Case No. 4:19-cv0365-LSC-GMB and/or submit additional documents in support of that petition, he must file a motion 

in that case.

DONE and ORDERED this 13th day of March, 2020. 

____________________________________

KARON OWEN BOWDRE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:19-cv-01643-KOB-JHE Document 17 Filed 03/13/20 Page 4 of 4