Dut M. v. Barr
- Eric Tostrud
- 0:20-cv-00786
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 5
In Dut M. v. Barr, Judge Tostrud denied objections and dismissed both detention petitions without prejudice because one was premature and the other unsupported.
Abraham Dut M. was directly affected: both of his petitions challenging immigration detention were dismissed without prejudice. The order also addressed the listed federal, immigration, and county respondents.
What happened
In Abraham Dut M. v. Barr, the court reviewed two petitions challenging Abraham Dut M.’s continued immigration detention. A magistrate judge had recommended dismissing both petitions without prejudice.
The first petition was filed within six months after the removal order became final, a period the law generally treats as constitutionally reasonable. The second petition was filed later, but Abraham did not provide evidence showing good reason to believe that removal was unlikely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court also considered his allegations of a conspiracy involving South Sudanese and United States authorities, but found that he still had not supported those allegations with evidence.
Judge Tostrud accepted the recommendations, denied Abraham’s objections in both cases, and dismissed both petitions without prejudice. The order stated that Abraham could try another proceeding if he later substantiated his allegations.
The detailed version
- Dut M. v. Barr · No. 0:20-cv-00786
- Eric Tostrud
- Sept. 15, 2020
Background
The order addresses two substantially similar petitions filed by Abraham Dut M. under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a statute that allows a person to challenge the legality or duration of federal custody. The respondents were William P. Barr, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Peter Berg, and Sheriff Kurt Freitag.
Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer recommended dismissing both petitions without prejudice. The recommendation stated that the first petition was filed prematurely—within six months after Abraham’s removal order became final—and that the second petition did not meet Abraham’s initial burden to show good reason to believe there was no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Review of the Recommendations
Abraham submitted a letter alleging a conspiracy involving the Republic of South Sudan, the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and an individual immigration officer. He appeared to request an order requiring the South Sudanese government to communicate directly with him and explain why he had not received a travel document.
Although the letter did not expressly object to any specific part of the recommendations, the court understood the allegations as possibly challenging the finding that the South Sudanese government was cooperative and that removal was significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court therefore reviewed the recommendations independently, as required when a party objects to a magistrate judge’s proposed findings.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the first petition was filed within the six-month period identified in Zadvydas v. Davis as presumptively constitutional for detention after a removal order. It therefore found that the first petition was properly dismissed.
The second petition was filed more than six months after the relevant period began. Under Zadvydas, Abraham then had to provide some basis for believing that removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The court found that he had provided no evidence supporting that burden. Even considering his new conspiracy allegations, the court concluded that he had not substantiated them and that the second petition was properly dismissed.
Disposition
The court accepted the Report and Recommendation in each case and denied Abraham’s objection in each case. It dismissed the petition in No. 20-cv-786 without prejudice and dismissed the petition in No. 20-cv-1350 without prejudice. The order noted that future circumstances could affect the reasonableness of Abraham’s continued detention and that he could attempt to substantiate his allegations in another proceeding under § 2241.
Judge Eric C. Tostrud signed the order on September 15, 2020.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.