FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T J UNE 21, 2012 J OHN L EY CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 15 12 0 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 4 :1 1- cv -0 02 00 -RH-WCS

DAVID OLUSOL A OLADO KUN, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t,
ve rs us U.S. ATTO RNEY GENERAL, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, SHERIFF , WAKULLA COUNTY, FLORIDA, US DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, MARC MOORE, Fi el d Off ic e Dir ect orfor

Dete nt io n a ndRem ov al US Im m ig rat io n a ndCu st om s En fo rcem en t, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees , MIC HAEL ROZOS, et c., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l l Res po nd en t.__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 2 1, 2 01 2) Befo re PRYOR, JORDAN an d ANDERSON, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: Dav idOlu so laOlad okun ap pe al s p ro se th e d en ia l o f hi s p et it io n fo r a wri t of habe as co rp us . Olad okun , a na ti ve an d c it iz enof Ni ge ria , cha ll en ge d h is
co nt in ue d d et en ti on by the Depa rtment o f Hom el an d S ecu rit y as u nr eas on ab le
un de r Zadvydas v. Dav is , 53 3 U.S. 6 78 , 12 1 S . Ct. 2 49 1 (2 00 1) . Becau se Olad okun fai le d t o e st ab li sh th atth e Dep art m en t i s i nc ap ab le of r em ov in g h im to Nig eri a in th e rea so nabl y for es eeab le futur e, we affi rm . Olad okun en te redth e Uni te d S ta te s wi th ou t i ns pe ct io n i n 1 99 3, an d h e h as be ensubjec t t o afin al ord er o f rem ov al si nc e Feb ru ary 20 05 . In M ay 20 05 , th e Dep artm en t at te m

pt edto lo cat e Ola do ku n fo r rem ov al , bu t h e el ud edfed eral ag en ts . Olad okunwas a rres te d i n F lo rid a in Octo be r 20 10 , andth e Dep art m en t ob ta in edcu st od y

of Ol ad okun on Nov em

be r 1, 2 01 0. Ni ne da y s l at er, the Dep artm en t fo rward edto th e Nig eri anCo ns ul at e anoff ic ia l re qu es t t o re qu es t an
em erg en cy

tra ve l d oc um en t fo r Ola do ku n. In Janua ry 20 11 , th e Nig eri an 2Co ns ul at e fo rward edto th e Dep art m en t a t rav el do cu m en t fo r Ola do ku n, an d t he

Dep artm en t s ch edul edOlad okun to de part t he Uni te d S ta te s o n F eb ru ary 8, 2 01 1. Acco rd in g t o Deb or ah Pas te rak , a de po rta ti on off ic er i n t he Depa rtment, a ge nt s pl acedOlad okun on anair pl an e as sch edul ed , bu t h e cre at eda co m m ot io n t ha t
cau se d U.S. Ma rs ha ls to rem ov e Ola do ku n fr om th e ai rp la ne an d re tu rnhi m to th e Dep artm en t. Ola do ku n a tt em pt edto fle e, an d a ge nt s h an dc uf fedOlad okun an d returne d h im

to de te nt io n. Ol ad okun lat er co m pl ai ne d t ha t h e h adbe enin jure d whe n h an dc uf

fed , andag en ts tra ns po rte d Ol ad okun to a lo cal ho sp it al foran ex am in at io n, af

te r whi chhi s p hysic ia ns st at edth athe was u nh urt an d h eal th y . Olad okun rece iv edtwo no ti ces th athe ha d fa il edto co m pl y with re m ov al pr oc edur es . On Feb ru ary 11 , 20 11 , th e Dep artm en t n ot ifi edOlad okun th athi s rem ov al was b ei ng ex te nd edbe cau se he ha d “ wil lfu l[l y ] fai l[e d] an d re fu s[ ed ] to de pa rt the Uni te d S ta te s.” OnMay 9, 20 11 , th e Dep art m en t s erv edOlad okun with
a n ot ic e th athi s re m ov al was b ei ng ex te nd eda se co ndti m e b ecau se he ha d re fu se d

“ [o ]n Feb ru ary 15 , 20 11 , Marc h 1 0, 2 01 1 a ndApri l 1 3, 2 01 1, . . . to si gn ackno wled ge m en t fo r . . . the form I-2 29 (a) andIns tru ct io n s he et ” an d t ha t

“ fai l[u re] to co m

pl y . . . [h ad ] pr ev en t[e d] [hi s] rem ov al fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s.” On M ay 6, 2 01 1, Ol ad okun fil edpro se ape ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us . Olad okun di d “ no t ch al le ng [e] th e v al id it y of t he rem ov al ord er . . ., [bu t]
3rathe r . . . chal le ng edhi s i nd efi ni te an d c on ti nu edde te nt io n” by the Department.

Olad okun ass ert edth athi s “ on go in g d et en ti on [was ] in vi ol at io n o f Zadvydas ” be cau se th e “ si x m on th pre su m pt iv el y reas on ab le rem ov al pe rio d” ex pi redon May 2, 2 01 1, an d “ th ere [ was ] no si gn ifi can t l ik el ih oo d o f ge tt in g authe nt ic tra ve l do cu m en ts no w or i n [t he ] fo res eeab le futur e fro m th e Nig eri an [] Con su la te .” Olad okun co nt en de d t ha t h e co ul d n otob ta in a tr av el do cu m en t b ecau se Nig eri a di d “ no t h av e an y

reco rdof h im

lea vi ng . . . in Feb ru ary 19 93 ,” bu t i n h is rep ly to th e Dep art m en t, Ol ad okun adm it te d t ha t h e h ad“ st op pe d ‘si gn in g fo rm I-2 29 th at wil l au th or iz e ICE t o e ve r co nt actNig eri anCo ns ul at e fo r tr av el do cum en ts on hi s be ha lf.” Olad okun arg ue d t ha t h is co nt in ue d d et en ti on“ co nt rav en e[d ] 8 U.S.C. [§ ] 12 31 (a)( 6) ” an d v io la te d h is rig ht s t o s ub st an ti ve an d p ro cedur al du e p ro ces s. Olad okun als o a rg ue d t ha t the Agen cy ha d v io la te d h is rig htof f ree s pe ech un de r th e Fi rs t Am en dm en t b y

“ [a]tt ack in g [h im ] whe n h e as ke d t o t al k t o t he Delt a Airl in e Pi lo t” ; v io la te d h is rig htno t t o b e u nl awfu ll y sei zedun de r th e Fo urth Am en dm en t “ [b ]y

ho ld in g [h im ] un reas on ab ly” at the air po rt a ndat t he ho sp it al ; vi ol at edth e equa l p ro te ct io n c om po ne ntof t he Due P ro ces s C laus e o f th e Fi fth Am en dm en t b y

ig no rin g h is reque st s “ to ge t s om e o f hi s p ro pe rti es ” an d b y us in g un ne ces sary

for ce t o h an dc uf

f hi m “be cau se of h is na ti on al ori gi n” ; an d v io la te d th e p ro hi bi ti on ag ai ns t crue l an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t u nd er the Eig ht h
4Am en dm en t b y us in g u nn eces sary

for ce atth e ai rp ort, atth e h os pi ta l, an d wh il e tra ns po rti ng hi m

to an d fr om

th e h os pi ta l. A m ag is tra te jud ge reco m m en de d t ha t the di st ric t co urt d en y Olad okun ’s pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us . The m ag is tra te jud ge fou ndth atOlad okun

“ ab sc on de d fo r fi ve y ears aft er a fi na l o rd er o f rem ov al was i ss ue d,” “ im pe de [d ] hi s re m ov al by beco m in g c om ba ti ve when pl acedon th e ai rp la ne . . . an d t ry in g t o fle e[,] andno w refu se s t o a ll ow h is fin ge rp rin ts to be tak en .” Inth e li gh t o f th es e fact s, the m ag is tra te jud ge co nc lu de d t ha t Ol ad okun ha d t ol le d t he si x- m on th pe rio d t ha t the Supr em e Co urt h el d t o b e rea so nabl e in Zadv y da s b ecau se he

“pr ev en te d h is rem ov al on Feb ru ary 8, 2 01 1,” an d h ad“ fai l[e d] to co op erat e . . . si nc e th atti m e.” 8 U.S.C. § 1 23 1( a)(1 )(C) . Alte rn at iv el y , th e m ag is tra te jud ge co nc lu de d t ha t Ol ad okunwas “ no t en ti tl edto rel ie f un de r Zadvydas be cau se hi s rem ov al is reas on ab ly fors eeab le .” The d is tri ctco urt d en ie d Ol ad okun ’s pet it io n. The di stric t co urt d idno t err by den y in g Ol ad okun ’s pet it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us . Olad okun fai ls to “pr ov id e[] go odreas onto be li ev e th atth ere i s n o si gn ifi can t l ik el ih oo d o f [h is ] rem ov al in th e rea so nabl y for es eeab le futur e.” Zadvydas , 53 3 U.S. at70 1, 1 21 S. Ct. at25 05 . In co ntras t t o t he pe ti ti on er i n Zadvydas , who co ul d n otbe rem ov edbe cau se th e rec ei vi ng co un tri es refu se d t o acce pthi m , Olad okun ’s no n- co op erat io n i s the on ly barri er t o h is rem ov al . The
5Dep artm en t co ul d h av e rem ov edOlad okun to Nig eri a, bu t fo r hi s m is co nduc t at

th e ai rp ort. Ola do ku n c on te nd s tha t the tra ve l d oc um en t o bt ai ne d fo r hi s re m ov al in Feb ru ary was in va li d, b ut“ [s ]pecu la ti on is in su ffi ci en t t o c arry the bu rd enof a habe as co rp us pe ti ti on er.” Hal l v . Head , 31 0 F .3d68 3, 7 05 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (in te rn al qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) . Sin ce Ol ad okun th wart edhi s re m ov al , he adm it te dl y

ha s re fu se d t o c om

pl et e fo rm s n eces sa ry

forhi m to ob ta in a ne w tra ve l do cu m en t. Fo r Ola do ku n, “ a subs tant ia l l ik el ih oo d o f rem ov al subs is ts ,” Cl arkv. Marti ne z, 54 3 U.S. 3 71 , 38 6, 1 25 S. Ct. 7 16 , 72 7 (2 00 5) , andhi s d et en ti on pr es en tl y do es no t v io la te hi s ri gh ts of due pro ces s u nd er the Fif th Am en dm en t. The Depa rtment arg ue s tha t Ol ad okunwaiv edhi s cl ai m s re ga rd in g t he vi ol at io n o f hi s ri gh ts un de r th e Fi rs t, Fo urth , andFif th Am en dm en ts , andwe ag ree. Ol ad okun ass ert s i n h is st at em en t o f th e fac ts th atth e Dep art m en t v io la te d hi s co ns ti tu ti on al rig ht s, b utOlad okun fai ls to expl ai n h ow the act io ns of the Dep artm en t wer e u nl awfu l. “ W e m ay de cl in e to ad dr es s an arg um en t wh ere a pa rty fail s t o p ro vi de arg um en ts on th e m eri ts of a n i ss ue in it s i ni ti al or r ep ly br ie f” b ecau se “ [w]ith ou t s uc h a rg um en t the is su e is de em edwaiv ed .” Uni te d St at es v. Gupt a, 46 3 F .3d11 82 , 11 95 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). W e AFFIRM th e d en ia l o f Ola do ku n’s p et it io n fo r a wri t o f habe as co rp us .

6