Southern District of California • 3:26-cv-02675

#1

Apr 27, 2026

Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus against Warden Jeremy Casey ( Filing fee $ 5 receipt number 168899.), filed by Dagim Tariku Kenea. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Receipt, # 7 Envelope)The new case number is 3:26-cv-2675-JO-MSB. Judge Jinsook Ohta and Magistrate Judge Michael S. Berg are assigned to the case. Docket mailed to petitioner(tac) (Entered: 04/29/2026)

#2

Apr 29, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: The Court adopts the Standard Procedures for this Immigration Habeas Petition from Chief Judge Order No. 144, which is available on the court's website with the following modification: Any optional reply will be due 3 days after the government's opposition. Further, the Court sets a hearing on the Petition for May 14, 2026 at 9:30 AM in Courtroom 4C. All parties may appear by videoconference for the hearing. The courtroom deputy will provide the videoconference information ahead of the hearing, which will proceed unless the Court issues a written decision on the merits ahead of the hearing date. Parties are directed to check the docket at 5:00 PM the day before the hearing. Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 4/29/2026. (mk) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (rxc). (Entered: 04/29/2026)

Apr 29, 2026

Minute Order (No Time) AND ~Util - Set Motion and R&R Deadlines/Hearings

#3

May 04, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#4

May 06, 2026

Return to Petition for Writ of H/C

#5

May 11, 2026

Notice of Appearance

#6

May 12, 2026

Minute Order by Judge Jinsook Ohta: Petitioner Dagrim Tariko Kenea, a citizen of Ethiopia, seeks habeas relief from his prolonged detention following a final removal order. See Dkt. 1. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the habeas petition.1. Petitioner entered the United States without inspection on January 25, 2025, and was placed in expedited removal. Dkt. 4-1 P. 6. On May 5, 2026, an asylum officer determined that Petitioner presented a credible fear of returning to Ethiopia, and the government initiated removal proceedings under Section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, allowing him to apply for asylum. Id. P. 8. On November 12, 2025, an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner removed to Ethiopia, denied his application for asylum, and granted withholding of removal. Id. P. 11; Dkt. 4-3 at 4-7. Petitioner appealed this decision to the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed the appeal on January 20, 2026. Dkt. 4-1 P. 13. The removal order therefore became administratively final on that date. Id. PP. 13, 14. Petitioner has remained detained at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility since then. Dkt. 1.2. For the reasons stated in Pacheco v. LaRose, No. 3:25-CV-2421-JO-AHG, 2026 WL 242300, *2-*3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026), the Court finds that 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) does not bar Petitioner's collateral challenge to the constitutionality of his current detention. As courts have consistently found, a challenge to continued detention pending removal does not intrude on the government's discretion to decide "when" or "whether" to execute a removal order and falls outside § 1252(g)'s scope. See Phakeokoth v. Noem, No. 3:25-cv-02817-RBM-SBC, 2025 WL 3124341, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2025); Esmaeili v. Noem, No. 26-CV-0203-GPC-JLB, 2026 WL 240661 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2026).3. The Court further finds that Petitioner's continued detention violates his substantive due process rights under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (detention following a final removal order is presumptively reasonable for six months in order to effectuate removal but becomes unlawful if the government fails to rebut a noncitizen's showing that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future). Although detention is mandatory during the initial 90-day removal period, the six-month presumption recognized in Zadvydas is rebuttable where the petitioner demonstrates that removal is not reasonably foreseeable, such that continued detention "exceeds a period reasonably necessary to secure removal." Id. at 700; see Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371, 384 ("Zadvydas did not hold that the statute authorizes detention until it approaches constitutional limits...."); Hoang Trinh v. Homan, 333 F.Supp.3d 984, 994 (C.D. Cal. 2018) (explaining that the "Supreme Court in Zadvydas outlined a 'guide' for approaching these detention challenges, 533 U.S. at 700-701, not a prohibition on claims challenging detention less than six months"). The government has continued to detain Petitioner since his removal order became final on January 20, 2026, yet has made almost no progress toward effectuating his removal to a third country. Dkt. 4-1 PP. 15-22. On December 26, 2025, San Diego Enforcement and Removal Operations Field Office contacted Removal and International Operations to request assistance with identifying a third country for Petitioner's removal. Id. P. 15, 16. The Field Office followed up three times on March 9, 2026, March 17, 2026, and May 6, 2026, but no third country has been identified. Id. PP. 19-22. Given the government's failure to identify a third country--the necessary first step for removal--the Court finds that Petitioner has rebutted the Zadvydas presumption that detention may be reasonable for up to six months following a final removal order. Because there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the Court finds that Petitioner's detention is unlawful under Zadvydas and orders his immediate release.The Court's ruling and injunctive terms are set forth in a separate order at Dkt. 7.Signed by Judge Jinsook Ohta on 5/12/2026. (mk) (Entered: 05/12/2026)

#7

May 12, 2026

Order

#8

May 12, 2026

Judgment - Clerk

May 12, 2026

Minute Order (No Time)

#9

May 13, 2026

Notice (Other)