Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 27, 2025

Ndoye v. William P. Joyce

Full caption

Mamadou Boucoum Ndoye v. William P. Joyce, in his official capacity as Deputy Field Office Director of New York, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Kristi Noem, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security; and Pamela Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney General of the United States

Judge
Vernon Broderick
Docket
1:25-cv-08856
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
HabeasImmigrationCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Mamadou Boucoum Ndoye v. Joyce, Judge Broderick ordered responses to a detention challenge, scheduled a hearing, and temporarily barred removal or certain transfers.

Who this affects

Mamadou Boucoum Ndoye, the named government respondents, and officials responsible for his removal or transfer.

What happened

Mamadou Boucoum Ndoye, who was detained at Orange County Correctional Facility, filed a petition asking the court to review his detention under a federal law. His wife, Charisse Smith Ndoye, filed the petition on his behalf.

The court ordered the government respondents to explain by October 30 why the petition should not be granted. Ndoye could reply by November 3, and the court scheduled a hearing for November 4, requiring the respondents to bring him to court. The court also barred his removal from the United States and limited his transfer to certain nearby districts unless the court ordered otherwise.

Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued this order on October 27, 2025. The order set procedures for considering the petition but did not decide whether Ndoye’s detention was lawful or whether the petition should ultimately be granted.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Ndoye v. William P. Joyce · No. 1:25-cv-08856
Judge
Vernon Broderick
Date
Oct. 27, 2025

Background

Mamadou Boucoum Ndoye, who was detained at the Orange County Correctional Facility, filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 asking the federal court to review his detention. The petition was filed on October 25, 2025, on Ndoye’s behalf by his wife, Charisse Smith Ndoye. The opinion does not state the legal grounds for challenging the detention or the relief ultimately sought beyond the petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

Court’s Order

The court issued an “Order to Answer” rather than deciding the petition’s merits. It ordered the respondents to file an opposition by October 30, 2025, explaining why the petition should not be granted. Ndoye was allowed to reply by November 3, 2025.

The court scheduled a hearing for November 4, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse in New York, New York. It ordered the respondents to produce Ndoye at the hearing.

To preserve the court’s jurisdiction while the petition was pending, the court ordered that Ndoye not be removed from the United States unless the court ordered otherwise. It also prohibited his transfer except to a facility within the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York, or the District of New Jersey, unless the court issued a further order. The clerk was directed to notify the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.

Disposition and Significance

Judge Vernon S. Broderick did not grant or deny the petition. The order required the government to answer, set a hearing, and temporarily restricted removal and transfers while the court considered the petition. The opinion therefore does not resolve whether Ndoye’s detention violated federal law.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.