Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alnd-4_19-cv-00511/USCOURTS-alnd-4_19-cv-00511-1/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

RICARDO HUGH BROWN,

Petitioner,

v.

DAVID RIVERA, et al.,

Respondents.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 4:19-cv-00511-RDP-HNJ

AMENDED MEMORANDUM OPINION

On December 9, 2019, the Magistrate Judge entered a report recommending 

this action be dismissed without prejudice. (Doc. 12). The Magistrate Judge further 

recommended that Brown’s motion for evidentiary hearing be denied. (Id.). 

On January 6, 2020, the court dismissed this action without prejudice. (Docs. 

14, 15). The court noted improvidently that no objections had been received by the 

court. (Doc. 14 at 1). However, the court received Petitioner Brown’s objections on

January 3, 2020.1 (Doc. 13). Accordingly, the court WITHDRAWS the 

Memorandum Opinion and Order entered January 6, 2020. (Docs. 14, 15). 

In his objections, Brown claims a New York criminal court is considering 

vacating his convictions for the criminal sale of marijuana, convictions which the 

 

1

 Because Petitioner Brown is in custody, the court will deem the objections filed the date he 

delivered them to custodial officials for mailing which appears to be December 22, 2019. (Doc. 

13 at 3). See Washington v. United States, 243 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001); Adams v. United 

States, 173 F.3d 1339, 1341 (11th Cir. 1999). 

FILED

 2020 Jan-15 AM 09:38

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

N.D. OF ALABAMA

Case 4:19-cv-00511-RDP-HNJ Document 16 Filed 01/15/20 Page 1 of 3
immigration authorities used to initiate Brown’s Notice to Appear in Immigration 

Court and the subsequent order of removal. (Doc. 13 at 1). He further states that 

some of his other drug offenses have been expunged and his convictions for petit 

larceny, resisting arrest, obtaining transportation without paying, and driving with a 

suspended license do not support deportation. (Id.).

Brown does not address the magistrate judge’s findings that his claims are 

premature under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A) because he has filed petitions for review 

and motions for stay of removal in the Second Circuit, and thus, he has a petition for 

review currently pending. See Brown v. Barr, No. 19-2980 (2d Cir.). In the Eleventh 

Circuit, a petitioner’s appeal of his removal order, accompanied by, or without, a 

stay of removal, “interrupts” the presumptively reasonable, six-month removal 

period arising under § 1231(a)(1)(A). And that operates to postpone a petitioner’s 

access to the relief accorded by Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). See 

Akinwale v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050, 1052 n.4 (11th Cir. 2002). At the time Brown

filed the present petition, immigration authorities had not detained him beyond the 

presumptively reasonable six months, as that time period is construed by Akinwale,

and thus, his petition is due to be dismissed without prejudice as premature. Id. at 

1052. Therefore, the court OVERRULES Brown’s objections. 

Having carefully reviewed and considered de novo all the materials in the 

court file, including the report and recommendation, and the objections thereto, the 

Case 4:19-cv-00511-RDP-HNJ Document 16 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 3
court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and ACCEPTS his recommendation. 

Accordingly, the petition is due to be dismissed without prejudice. In addition, 

Brown’s motion for evidentiary hearing is due to be denied. 

A separate order will be entered. 

DONE and ORDERED this January 15, 2020.

_________________________________

R. DAVID PROCTOR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:19-cv-00511-RDP-HNJ Document 16 Filed 01/15/20 Page 3 of 3