Mauthe v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office
- Kandis Westmore
- 4:23-cv-06244
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Mauthe v. Field Office Director, Judge Westmore ordered immigration officials to answer Mauthe’s challenge to his continued detention.
Johnny Sivares Mauthe, who is detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the respondent immigration officials who must answer his detention challenge.
What happened
In Mauthe v. Field Office Director, Johnny Sivares Mauthe asked the federal court to review his continued detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement after a removal order.
According to the petition, Mauthe has been detained since April 2023, has cooperated with efforts to remove him to Thailand, and believes removal is unlikely because Thailand has no record of him. He argues that his continued detention violates federal law.
Judge Kandis A. Westmore found that the petition raised a valid basis for relief and ordered the respondents to answer within 60 days, explaining why the court should not order his release. The judge did not decide whether Mauthe’s detention is unlawful.
The detailed version
- Mauthe v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office · No. 4:23-cv-06244
- Kandis Westmore
- Jan. 11, 2024
Background
Johnny Sivares Mauthe filed a petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a procedure allowing a person in federal custody to challenge the legality of that custody. The petition challenges Mauthe’s continued detention by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6).
The facts described in the order come from the petition. Mauthe is a noncitizen who was born in Thailand, entered the United States in 1988, and later became a lawful permanent resident. He was convicted of first-degree murder. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained him on or around April 14, 2023. He was ordered removed on April 27, 2023, and did not appeal that order. He has cooperated with efforts to deport him to Thailand, but the petition states that removal is unlikely because Thailand has no record of him. He has remained in immigration custody since his detention.
Court’s Analysis
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas v. Davis, which addresses constitutional challenges to immigration detention after the removal period. The court explained that § 1231(a)(6) does not allow indefinite detention. If removal is not reasonably foreseeable, continued detention may become unreasonable and unauthorized, and release may be conditioned on appropriate supervision.
The court also explained that detention after the removal period is presumptively constitutional for six months. After that period, if a detained noncitizen provides a good reason to believe that removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, the government must respond with evidence addressing that showing. The court found that Mauthe had provided such a reason.
Order and Effect
The court issued an order to show cause rather than deciding the petition. The Clerk was directed to serve the order, petition, and attachments on the respondents and their counsel, and to send a copy of the petition to the Attorney General and Mauthe.
The respondents must file and serve an answer within 60 days of the order’s issuance, explaining why the court should not grant the requested relief and providing relevant documents. Mauthe may respond within 60 days after receiving the answer. The order also sets procedures for any motion by the respondents and warns that failure to prosecute the case or comply with court orders may result in dismissal. The filing fee had been paid.
The court’s action keeps the detention challenge moving forward; it does not determine whether Mauthe must be released or whether his detention violates federal law.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.