Swaby v. Garland
- Sallie Kim
- 3:23-cv-03443
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Swaby v. Garland, Judge Kim allowed the detention challenge to proceed, dismissed improper respondents, granted fee-waiver status, and denied counsel without prejudice.
Tajohn Hasini Jarred Swaby, the dismissed respondents, the remaining respondent identified as Ms. Wofford, and the government officials responsible for responding to the detention challenge.
What happened
In Swaby v. Garland, Tajohn Hasini Jarred Swaby, who is representing himself, challenged his continued detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a final removal order. He said he had been detained continuously since February 19, 2021.
The court found that the petition arguably presented a valid challenge under federal law because detention cannot continue indefinitely when removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable. The court identified Ms. Wofford, the administrator of the detention facility listed in the petition, as the proper respondent and dismissed the other named respondents.
The court granted Swaby permission to proceed without paying filing fees, denied his request for appointed counsel without prejudice, and ordered the proper respondent to answer the petition. Judge Sallie Kim issued the order on August 4, 2023.
The detailed version
- Swaby v. Garland · No. 3:23-cv-03443
- Sallie Kim
- Aug. 4, 2023
Background
Tajohn Hasini Jarred Swaby filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure allowing a person in custody to challenge detention that allegedly violates federal law. Swaby, who proceeded without a lawyer, challenged his prolonged detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Golden State Annex in McFarland, California. He stated that he is a native of Jamaica, entered Immigration and Customs Enforcement custody on February 19, 2021, and received a final removal order on March 29, 2021. He also requested permission to proceed without paying filing fees and appointment of counsel.
Screening and Respondents
The court explained that federal district courts may review petitions challenging the lawfulness of immigration detention. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Zadvydas v. Davis, the government may continue detention after a final removal order, but may not detain a person indefinitely when removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable. The court concluded that, liberally construing Swaby’s petition, it stated an arguably valid claim based on his prolonged detention.
Swaby named five respondents. The court held that only one respondent was needed and appropriate in a petition challenging present physical confinement: the person able to produce the detained person before the court. It identified “Ms. Wofford, Facilitu Administrator, Golden Gate Annex” as the proper respondent and dismissed the other named respondents.
Other Requests and Order
The court granted Swaby’s request to proceed without paying filing fees. It denied without prejudice his request for appointment of counsel, explaining that he had adequately presented his claim and that appointment generally was discretionary unless an evidentiary hearing later became necessary.
The court ordered the clerk to serve the order and related materials, ordered the proper respondent to file and serve an answer within 60 days explaining why the detention challenge should not succeed, and allowed Swaby 30 days after receiving the answer to file a response. This order required a response to the petition; it did not decide whether Swaby was entitled to release or other habeas relief. Judge Sallie Kim signed the order.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.