Western District of Pennsylvania • 3:26-cv-01337

#2

Jul 10, 2026

BRIEF in Support of 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by GURAMI ASHADZE. (Attachments: # 1 Envelope) (ljs) (Entered: 07/14/2026)

Jul 10, 2026

Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan added. (ljs)

#1

Jul 14, 2026

ATTORNEY Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Credit Card Required)

#3

Jul 15, 2026

Case Management Order

#4

Jul 15, 2026

STANDING ZADVYDAS ORDER. In alien habeas cases, petitioners often challenge their detention as being unconstitutionally prolonged, either at the outset or later during the pendency of their cases. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) ("The serious constitutional problem arising out of a statute that, in these circumstances, permits an indefinite, perhaps permanent, deprivation of human liberty without any such protection is obvious.") In order to monitor and assess the validity of any such potential claim, Respondents shall file a status report updating the Court on Petitioner's detention status six months from today. No such report need be filed if Petitioner has been released prior to that date. Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 7/15/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (pak) (Entered: 07/15/2026)

Jul 15, 2026

Order

#5

Jul 16, 2026

NOTICE of Appearance by David Lew on behalf of WARDEN, MOSHANNON VALLEY PROCESSING CENTER. (Lew, David) (Entered: 07/16/2026)

#6

Jul 22, 2026

RESPONSE to 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by WARDEN, MOSHANNON VALLEY PROCESSING CENTER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5, # 6 Exhibit 6, # 7 Exhibit 7, # 8 Exhibit 8, # 9 Exhibit 9, # 10 Exhibit 10) (Lew, David) (Entered: 07/22/2026)

#7

Jul 23, 2026

ORDER. Respondents allege in their response that it is anticipated that Petitioner will be removed to a third country no later than 8/6/2026. Such a removal would likely render the habeas petition moot. See Lindaastuty v. AG of the United States, 186 F. App'x 294, 298 (3d Cir. 2006). As such, Respondents are ordered to file a status report with the Court on or before 8/20/2026, concerning whether this removal occurred. Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 7/23/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (pak) (Entered: 07/23/2026)

Jul 23, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Set Deadlines

#8

Jul 24, 2026

Stay

#9

Jul 27, 2026

ORDER denying 8 Motion to Stay. Petitioner seeks to temporarily enjoin Respondent(s) from transferring him outside this Court's jurisdiction and from removing him to Moldova without providing certain disclosures and an opportunity to be heard. First, Congress has vested the Secretary of Homeland Security and his/her delegates, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with the authority to detain aliens pending a decision on their removal proceedings. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1231(a)(2), 1226(a), (c)(1). And Congress has vested the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) with the discretion to set the place of detention. 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1); Sinclair v. Att'y Gen., 198 F. App'x 218, 222 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006) (collecting cases). Within DHS' discretion is the authority to transfer aliens from one detention center to another. Calla-Collado v. Att'y Gen., 663 F.3d 680, 685 (3d Cir. 2011). Reading § 1231(g)(1) together with Congress's limitations in 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(2)(B)(ii) on federal district courts' jurisdiction to review discretionary actions by DHS, federal district courts have concluded that they lack jurisdiction to review DHS' decisions under § 1231. See, e.g., Jane v. Rodriguez, No. 20-5922, 2020 WL 10140953, *1-2 (D.N.J. May 22, 2020) (citing cases). Nor does the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, provide the Court with jurisdiction to enjoin transfer. Barrios v. Att'y Gen., 452 F. App'x 196, 198 (3d Cir. 2011) (jurisdiction-stripping provision in section § 1252(g) of INA, which is identical to jurisdiction-stripping language of §1252(a)(2)(B)(ii), is not superseded by All Writs Act). Thus, consistent with this authority, this Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to enjoin Petitioner's transfer to another jurisdiction. Second, 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) and (b)(9) strip federal district courts of jurisdiction over all claims arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove any alien, so judicial review of a final removal order is available only in the appropriate court of appeals. See E.O.H.C. v. Sec'y United States Dep't of Homeland Sec., 950 F.3d 177, 180 (3d Cir. 2020). Consequently, the Third Circuit has found that, when an alien: (1) has a final order of removal, (2) that final order of removal did not designate an alternate country of removal, (3) that alien is slated for removal to a third country, and (4) the alien has objections to the third country, the alien's challenge to removal to the third country is encompassed within the final removal order and is thus not reviewable by a district court. See Odiase v. Oddo, Civil Action No. 3:25-206, 2025 WL 2673938 (W.D. Pa. Sep. 18, 2025) (citing Tonfack v. AG United States, 580 F. App'x 79 (3d Cir. 2014)). As such, because Petitioner's issues with his removal to Moldova are encompassed within his final removal order, this Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to prevent his removal to Moldova or address any alleged procedural defects. Accordingly, because the Court lacks jurisdiction over both requests, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner's 8 Motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 7/27/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (pak) (Entered: 07/27/2026)

Jul 27, 2026

Order on Motion to Stay

#10

Aug 07, 2026

NOTICE of Suggestion of Mootness and Status Report by WARDEN, MOSHANNON VALLEY PROCESSING CENTER re 7 Order, Set Deadlines, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1) (Lew, David) (Entered: 08/07/2026)

#11

Aug 10, 2026

ORDER dismissing 1 Habeas Petition as moot. Respondents have filed a 10 Notice of Suggestion of Mootness and Status Report stating that Petitioner was removed from the United States on or about 8/4/2026. Therefore, Respondents contend that the Petition, which requested that Petitioner be released from immigration detention, must be dismissed as moot because Petitioner is no longer detained, so the court no longer can grant the relief that is requested. Upon review of the Petition and Respondents' Notice, the Court agrees. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition is dismissed without prejudice as moot, and the Clerk of Court is directed to mark this case CLOSED. Signed by Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan on 8/10/2026. Text-only entry; no PDF document will issue. This text-only entry constitutes the Order of the Court or Notice on the matter. (pak) (Entered: 08/10/2026)

Aug 10, 2026

Order AND ~Util - Terminate Civil Case