Phoummany v. United States

Background

Sompheth Phoummany pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska to conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance and received a 90-month prison sentence. He had also been ordered removed from the United States under a final removal order. Phoummany stated that, if removed to Laos, he would face immediate incarceration and execution. He asked the District of Minnesota to vacate the final removal order through a habeas petition, a court challenge to unlawful detention or custody.

Phoummany also relied on the First Step Act’s federal prison time-credit program. The law allows eligible federal prisoners to earn credits that may reduce the time they remain imprisoned, but it excludes prisoners who are subject to final removal orders. Phoummany argued that, without the removal order, he could be eligible for those credits.

Jurisdiction over the Removal Order

The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction, meaning legal authority, to decide Phoummany’s challenge. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g), with narrow exceptions, federal district courts cannot hear claims challenging a final removal order. Review of such an order generally must proceed through a petition for review in a court of appeals.

The court considered an exception under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(2), which permits limited habeas review of certain expedited removal decisions. That exception can address whether a person is an alien, whether the person was ordered removed under the expedited process, and whether the person was lawfully admitted as a permanent resident or refugee or was granted asylum. The court determined that the exception did not apply because Phoummany’s removal order was not issued through the expedited process covered by that provision.

The court also rejected the argument that the prison time-credit law supplied an alternative way to challenge the removal order. Although the amount of time a federal prisoner must remain in custody can be addressed through habeas review, the court stated that the time-credit law does not provide a way to challenge the validity of a removal order. Because Phoummany remained subject to a facially valid final removal order, he was ineligible for the credits at issue. The court stated that any challenge to the removal order had to proceed through a more appropriate procedural channel.

Recommended Disposition

Magistrate Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended that Phoummany’s habeas petition be DENIED without prejudice and that the case be DISMISSED without prejudice. The recommendation was issued under the court’s screening review and was not itself an order or judgment of the District Court. The notice stated that the parties could file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with the recommendation.