Northern District of Illinois • 1:25-cv-01568

#1

Feb 13, 2025

COMPLAINT filed by Ali Nezamabadi; Filing fee $ 405, receipt number AILNDC-23085477. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Kameli, Taher) (Entered: 02/13/2025)

#2

Feb 14, 2025

ORDER: Local Rule 3.1 requires at the time of filing a case, plaintiff's counsel, or if the case is filed pro se, the plaintiff shall file with the original papers a completed designation sheet (civil cover sheet). No civil cover sheet was submitted at the time of filing this matter. Ali Nezamabadi is directed to file the Civil Cover Sheet within 14 days of this notification. Signed by the Executive Committee. (mam, ) (Entered: 02/14/2025)

#3

Feb 14, 2025

DESIGNATION of Craig Arthur Oswald as U.S. Attorney for Defendants Caleb Vitello, sam olson, Kristi Noem (Oswald, Craig) (Entered: 02/14/2025)

#4

Feb 14, 2025

DESIGNATION of Joshua Samuel Press as U.S. Attorney for Defendants Caleb Vitello, sam olson, Kristi Noem (Press, Joshua) (Entered: 02/14/2025)

#5

Feb 14, 2025

CIVIL Cover Sheet (Kameli, Taher) (Entered: 02/14/2025)

#6

Feb 14, 2025

MOTION by Plaintiff Ali Nezamabadi for hearing on Emergency Motion to Release Petitioner from Custody (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit)(Kameli, Taher) (Entered: 02/14/2025)

#7

Feb 14, 2025

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: (Judge Chang is sitting as emergency judge.) On the Plaintiff's motion for emergency release 6, an in-person hearing is set for 2:30 p.m. today, 02/14/2025, in Courtroom 2341. The Plaintiff has already copied two Assistant U.S. Attorneys on emails to provide the complaint and motion to the government. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 02/14/2025)

#8

Feb 14, 2025

MEMORANDUM by Caleb Vitello, sam olson, Kristi Noem in Opposition to motion for hearing 6 (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Joseph Chavez)(Press, Joshua) (Entered: 02/14/2025)

#9

Feb 14, 2025

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang: (Judge Chang is sitting as emergency judge.) In-person emergency motion hearing held. Counsel for the parties appeared in person. (1.) By midnight tonight, the government shall file a supplemental response setting forth: (A) the basis for the detention of the Petitioner, explaining the factual basis and also citing governing statutes, regulations, or immigration-court orders; (B) citations to the Illinois TRUST Act that prompted the transfer of the Petitioner from Illinois to the Eastern District of Wisconsin; and (C) the basis for the government's position that the Petitioner could be transferred again without permission of a court. On the third issue, the Court had thought that there was an analogous Civil Rule or district-court provision to Appellate Rule 23(a), which bars transfers of habeas petitioners without court approval. But there might very well not be an analogue, so the government's supplemental response need not go beyond stating that it has researched the issue in good faith and found no bar against further transfers in this context. The Petitioner's reply to the government's supplement is due on 02/17/2025, but of course the reply may be filed earlier. (3.) The Court urges the Petitioner to consider filing a simultaneous petition in the Eastern District of Wisconsin, because it does appear that the direct custodian must be named as the Respondent, which would require suit in that district. And the Petition should also consider filing for bond on the so-called Detain Docket in the Immigration Court in Chicago, as suggested by the government during the hearing. (4.) A status hearing is set before the assigned District Judge (Chief Judge Kendall) for 02/20/2025 at 9:30 a.m. The parties shall file status reports, by 12:00 p.m. on 02/19/2025, explaining what issues they intend to present at the 02/20/2025 status hearing with Chief Judge Kendall. Emailed notice (mw, ) (Entered: 02/14/2025)

#10

Feb 14, 2025

MOTION by Defendants Caleb Vitello, sam olson, Kristi Noem to supplement (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1)(Press, Joshua) (Entered: 02/14/2025)

Feb 14, 2025

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Maria Valdez. Case assignment: Random assignment. (Civil Category 2). (mam, )

Feb 14, 2025

CLERK'S NOTICE: Pursuant to Local Rule 73.1(b), a United States Magistrate Judge of this court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action. If all parties consent to have the currently assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct all proceedings in this case, including trial, the entry of final judgment, and all post-trial proceedings, all parties must sign their names on the attached Consent To form. This consent form is eligible for filing only if executed by all parties. The parties can also express their consent to jurisdiction by a magistrate judge in any joint filing, including the Joint Initial Status Report or proposed Case Management Order. (mam, )

#11

Feb 15, 2025

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang (sitting as emergency judge): On review of the government's supplemental response, R. 10, it does not appear that the government has clearly explained the basis for the detention of the Petitioner. The supplement first cites generally to 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), (b). R. 10 at 1. But those provisions require "a warrant issued by the Attorney General." 8 U.S.C. 1226(a), (b). Perhaps a warrant was issued by the CBP officer referred to in the prior declaration, R. 8-1, or by some other designee of the Attorney General, but that is not explicitly averred in the declaration. The supplement moves on to mandatory detention, citing Section 1226(c)--but without first linking any particular subsection to the Petitioner. R. 10 at 1-2. The supplement does then cite new Section 1226(c)(1)(E)(ii), but the supplement only says that the "new law is **relevant** here." R. 10 at 2 (emphasis added). Maybe "relevant" is a stand-in for 'is the basis for detention,' but that is not at all clear. The supplement then cites the Petitioner's purported rap sheet, R. 10-1, as "relevant" because he "has been arrested in the recent past for crimes involving both 'bodily injury to another person' and 'larceny,'" R. 10 at 2 (quoting 8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1)(E)(ii) but not citing specific page of R. 10-1). But the quote to "bodily injury to another person" conveniently leaves out the adjective "serious" from the statute, 8 U.S.C. 1226(c)(1)(E)(ii). And the rap sheet does not seem to refer to "larceny" at all. See R. 10-1. Maybe the Court is missing something, but the supplement fails to contain a forthright answer on the basis for detention. In any event, the reply-brief schedule stands, including on the jurisdictional issue. But again the Petitioner should strongly consider immediately refiling the case in the Eastern District of Wisconsin to overcome the jurisdictional obstacle and to get to the merits of the habeas petition, and also immediately moving for bond before the immigration court, as suggested by the government itself. Emailed notice (Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 02/15/2025)

#12

Feb 15, 2025

REPLY by Ali Nezamabadi to MOTION by Defendants Caleb Vitello, sam olson, Kristi Noem to supplement 10 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1- Detainee Transfers)(Kameli, Taher) (Entered: 02/15/2025)

#13

Feb 15, 2025

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Edmond E. Chang (sitting as emergency judge): On review of the Petitioner's reply brief, R. 12, jurisdiction in this District remains in serious doubt, see 28 U.S.C. 2241(a) (authorizing the issuance of writs only "within their respective jurisdictions"), so much so that emergency relief is not justified. (1.) As noted during the hearing, the proper respondent for a habeas petition is the immediate custodian. Kholyavskiy v. Achim, 443 F.3d 946, 953 (7th Cir. 2006). So the Wisconsin custodial official is the proper respondent, which would require that the petition be filed in Wisconsin. The Petitioner cites In re Hall, 988 F.3d 376, 378 (7th Cir. 2021), but that case is not on point. The district court there had jurisdiction at the time of the filing of the habeas petition, id. at 377, so the **subsequent** transfer of the petitioner did not affect the original district court's jurisdiction, id. at 378. Here, the Petitioner was in a Wisconsin facility as of 02/12/2025, R. 8-1, Joseph Chavez Decl. para. 11, so there was no jurisdiction in this District when the habeas petition was filed on 02/13/2025, R. 1. (2.) Nor is there sufficient record evidence that the federal government intentionally shrouded the location of the Petitioner, given the apparent bar erected by the Illinois TRUST Act to immigration detention in Illinois, 5 ILCS 805/15(a)(g)(1). That there is one, short-term, staging federal facility in Illinois does not call into question the need (or the discretion) to detain the Petitioner (and no doubt others) outside of Illinois. (3.) Lastly, the Petitioner does not explain why he has not sought bond in immigration court, which would (absent any reason to believe otherwise) satisfy due process by providing an opportunity to be heard by the agency that has custody of him. Yet again the Court expresses that the Petitioner is free to file a habeas petition in the Eastern District of Wisconsin or to file for bail review in immigration court (or both), if those steps have not already been taken. (4.) Having said all this, rather than deny the petition outright and dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, the Court defers further steps to the assigned judge. Emergency release is denied. The status hearing before the assigned judge on 02/20/2025, and the deadline for filing status reports on 02/19/2025, remain in place absent further order. Emailed notice (Chang, Edmond) (Entered: 02/15/2025)

#14

Feb 19, 2025

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. On the Court's own Motion, Status hearing set for 2/20/2025 is reset for 10:45 AM (PLEASE NOTE TIME CHANGE ONLY). Mailed notice (lk, ) (Entered: 02/19/2025)

#15

Feb 19, 2025

NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Ali Nezamabadi (Kameli, Taher) (Entered: 02/19/2025)

#16

Feb 19, 2025

STATUS Report by Kristi Noem, Sam Olson, Caleb Vitello (Press, Joshua) (Entered: 02/19/2025)

#17

Feb 19, 2025

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Virginia M. Kendall. Case is dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) and Notice of Voluntary Dismissal 15 . Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (lk, ) (Entered: 02/19/2025)