Ndiaye v. Genalo
- Gregory Woods
- 1:26-cv-06053
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Matar Ndiaye v. Kenneth Genalo, Judge Woods ordered respondents to provide detention and jurisdiction information before setting a briefing schedule.
Matar Ndiaye and the respondents, including the officials responsible for providing information about his detention and related immigration proceedings.
What happened
Matar Ndiaye filed a petition challenging his detention under a federal law that allows a person to seek release from unlawful custody. The order does not decide whether his detention is lawful.
The court ordered the respondents to provide information within two business days, including Ndiaye’s location when he filed, his identification and detention information, the legal authority for his detention, any removal order, and the status of immigration proceedings. The court also asked whether a recent appellate decision affects the case. After receiving the letter, the court will set a briefing schedule if appropriate. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion listed at Docket No. 3.
Judge Gregory H. Woods issued the order and directed the U.S. Attorney’s Office’s Civil Division to receive electronic notice. The order requires the respondents’ letter but does not resolve the petition’s merits.
The detailed version
- Ndiaye v. Genalo · No. 1:26-cv-06053
- Gregory Woods
- July 17, 2026
Background
Matar Ndiaye filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a statute that permits a person to challenge certain forms of detention in federal court. The opinion does not decide whether Ndiaye’s detention is lawful or whether he is entitled to release.
Court’s Order
The court ordered the respondents to file a letter within two business days. The letter must state:
- whether Ndiaye was in the Southern District of New York when he filed the petition; if not, which federal district he was in and whether the case should be transferred there; - Ndiaye’s A-number, current place of detention, and a contact person who can help prospective counsel access him; - the statutory provisions the respondents rely on as authority to detain him; - if the respondents rely on 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(2)(A), whether there is a basis to distinguish this case from Cunha v. Freden; - a copy of any final removal order; and - information about the procedural status of any pending Department of Homeland Security or Executive Office for Immigration Review proceedings.
The court stated that it would issue a briefing schedule as appropriate after receiving the respondents’ letter. It directed the clerk to notify the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York electronically and to terminate the motion pending at Docket No. 3.
Disposition and Significance
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered the respondents to submit the requested information and terminated the pending motion. The order is a preliminary procedural step: it does not rule on the legality of Ndiaye’s detention, the petition’s merits, or whether the case should be transferred.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.