Abdikarim v. Pugh

Background

The report concerns two petitions for a writ of habeas corpus challenging possible future detention by federal immigration authorities. Zakariya Abdikarim is serving a lengthy Minnesota state-prison sentence after convictions on drug charges and fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle. He is also subject to a final order of removal from the United States. The federal government notified Minnesota that it intends to detain him after his state sentence is completed.

The petitions argued that future immigration detention would be unlawful because removal is not reasonably likely to occur. The first petition, filed in Case No. 26-cv-1890, was prepared for another habeas petitioner in an unrelated case. Abdikarim crossed out that petitioner's name, inserted his own, and altered some details by hand. The original petition concerned a person who had already been held by the federal government for more than six months after a final removal order.

The second petition, filed in Case No. 26-cv-2021, was prepared by Abdikarim himself. It alleges that he became subject to a final removal order in 2017, that removal could not be carried out, and that he had been granted withholding of removal. After his state conviction, Immigration and Customs Enforcement placed a detainer request asking to be notified when he is released from state custody so federal authorities can take him into custody.

The report notes that a third habeas petition, in No. 26-cv-2052 (JWB/ECW), challenges the effect of the detainer on the amount of time Abdikarim will remain in state prison. That separate proceeding was not at issue here.

Analysis

The magistrate judge applied preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. The report explained that the Supreme Court's decision in Zadvydas v. Davis holds that continued immigration detention is not authorized when removal is not reasonably foreseeable. But Abdikarim is currently held under state-court judgments, not in federal immigration custody.

Any federal detention would occur only after Abdikarim finishes serving his state sentence, which the report says is expected to take several years. Whether removal will be reasonably foreseeable at that future time cannot now be known. Because the legality of any future detention will depend on circumstances existing then, the report concluded that both petitions were premature.

The report also addressed Abdikarim's motion in Case No. 26-cv-1890 to amend the habeas petition and dismiss a previous habeas matter. The magistrate judge found the request unclear because no earlier habeas proceeding was pending when the first petition was filed. The report recommended denying amendment because Abdikarim had already filed a second petition, and because no amendment could solve the problem that the challenge concerns detention that might occur years later.

Recommended disposition

Judge Leo I. Brisbois recommended that the petition in Case No. 26-cv-1890 be denied without prejudice, that Abdikarim's motion to amend and dismiss be denied, and that the petition in Case No. 26-cv-2021 be denied without prejudice. The report states that it is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is not directly appealable to the Court of Appeals. It says specific written objections may be filed within 14 days after service.