Goorakani v. Todd M. Lyons
- Ho
- 1:25-cv-09456
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Behnam Goorakani v. Todd M. Lyons, Judge Ho granted the petition and ordered release from custody by 5 p.m. November 24, 2025.
Behnam Goorakani was ordered released from custody by 5 p.m. on November 24, 2025. The respondents must certify compliance with the order, and the scheduled conference was canceled.
What happened
In Behnam Goorakani v. Todd M. Lyons et al., the court relied on its earlier decision in Lopez Benitez v. Francis. The respondents acknowledged that decision would control this case if the court continued to follow it.
The court granted the petition and ordered that Behnam Goorakani be released from custody no later than 5 p.m. on November 24, 2025. It canceled the conference set for November 25 and required the respondents to file proof that they had complied. The court said a fuller opinion would follow.
Judge Dale E. Ho issued the order on November 23, 2025, from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The detailed version
- Goorakani v. Todd M. Lyons · No. 1:25-cv-09456
- Ho
- Nov. 24, 2025
Background
Behnam Goorakani filed a petition challenging his custody. The order does not describe the petition’s specific legal theory or the facts underlying the custody. Judge Dale E. Ho stated that the court’s decision was based on the reasons given in the court’s earlier opinion in Lopez Benitez v. Francis.
Parties’ Position
The respondents conceded that Lopez Benitez would control the result in this case if the court continued to follow that decision.
Ruling
The court granted the petition. It ordered that the petitioner be released from custody no later than 5 p.m. on November 24, 2025. The court canceled the conference previously scheduled for November 25, 2025 and ordered the respondents to certify compliance by filing on the docket. The court stated that a fuller opinion would follow.
Classification
This is a substantive ruling because the court granted the custody-related petition based on its determination that the earlier decision controlled the result. The order itself does not explain the underlying legal issue in detail.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.