Dima v. Genalo
- John Cronan
- 1:26-cv-06095
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
Counsel of record per CourtListener. Firm names are approximate.
In Celestin Dima v. Kenneth Genalo, Judge Cronan found transfer and removal injunctions unwarranted, vacated an earlier order, and set response deadlines.
Celestin Dima, the respondents, and the federal court proceedings concerning Dima’s § 2241 petition.
What happened
Celestin Dima filed a federal petition challenging his detention under a law that allows courts to review custody. The petition was filed on July 17, 2026.
The court vacated an earlier order and found that injunctions blocking Dima’s transfer outside the district or removal from the United States were not warranted. The court explained that a later transfer would not eliminate its authority to decide the petition and that Dima had not shown removal was imminent or that removal alone would cause the required harm.
Judge John P. Cronan ordered the respondents to answer the petition or state that they would not oppose it by July 31, 2026. Dima may file a reply by August 7, 2026.
The detailed version
- Dima v. Genalo · No. 1:26-cv-06095
- John Cronan
- July 20, 2026
Background
On July 17, 2026, Celestin Dima filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a federal law allowing a person to challenge certain custody or detention. The opinion does not decide whether Dima’s petition should be granted.
Court’s Action
The court vacated the order entered at Docket Number 3 before the case was assigned to Judge John P. Cronan.
The court found that an injunction preventing Dima from being transferred outside the Southern District of New York was not warranted. It relied on the rule that when a habeas petitioner names the person who directly holds him, the court retains authority to decide the petition even if the petitioner is later transferred.
The court also found that an injunction prohibiting Dima’s removal from the United States was not warranted. It stated that Dima had not alleged facts showing that removal was imminent and that removal alone could not establish the required irreparable injury.
Next Steps
The respondents must respond to the petition or state that they do not intend to oppose it by July 31, 2026. Dima may submit a reply by August 7, 2026. The Clerk was directed to notify the Civil Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York that the order had been issued.
Judge John P. Cronan’s order addressed interim relief and case deadlines; it did not resolve the merits of Dima’s petition.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.