Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Abed Rabboh v. United States

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

November 15, 2017

RAMI AHMAD ABED RABBOH, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Respondents.

          Rami Abed Rabboh 2241/Bivens U.S. Attorney

          REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          MAGISTRATE JUDGE P.A. WHITE

         I. Introduction

         The petitioner, Rami Abed Rabboh, while confined at the local Krome Service Processing Center[1], in Miami, Florida, filed this pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241, challenging his pre-removal detention and continued detention by the Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). He seeks an Order from this Court directing that he be released from immigration custody.

         This case has been referred to the undersigned for consideration and report pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B). See also, U.S. Dist. Ct., Southern Dist. of Fla., Admin. Order 2003-19. Pursuant to Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 may be applied to cases brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Therefore, summary dismissal of a habeas corpus action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241 is appropriate when the petition plainly reveals that relief is not warranted under Rule 4. See also 28 U.S.C. §2243 (providing that a §2241 petition can be dismissed unless it appears from the application that the person detained is not entitled to the relief requested.[2]

         II. Facts

         The petitioner arrived in the United States on December 31, 2002. He alleges he is in the custody of Immigration Customs Enforcement pursuant to an order of removal entered on August 1, 207 and has been in custody since that date. As of the date of this report the petitioner has been detained for 104 days after the entry of the order of removal.

         III. Legal Standard of Review

         Section 2241 authorizes a district court to grant a writ of habeas corpus whenever a petitioner is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 18 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Challenges to deportation proceedings are cognizable under Section 2241 and, under certain circumstances, challenges to detainers may also be brought under Section 2241. Orozco v. INS, 911 F.2d 539, 541 (11th Cir. 1990).

         IV. Discussion

         Petitioner explains that he entered the United States with a visa on December 31, 2002. He maintains a final order of removal was entered on August 1, 2017.

         Here, by petitioner's own admission, it appears that he is “in custody” for purposes of §2241 review because he is subject to a final order of removal. Although the petitioner has failed to name a respondent, the only proper respondent in a habeas corpus petition under §2241 is the inmate's immediate custodian at the time the petition is filed. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2242-2243; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004). The inmate's custodian is the warden of the facility where the inmate is confined. Padilla, 542 U.S. at 435.

         Petitioner suggests that his continued detention violates Due Process citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 694-99 (2001). In order for the Court to take jurisdiction over an action, an actual case or controversy must be present. Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U.S. 362, 372 (1976); O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 493-95 (1974); Johnson v. Sikes, 730 F.2d 644, 647 (11th Cir. 1984). Some “threatened or actual injury” must exist as a result of the defendant's allegedly wrongful actions. O'Shea, 414 U.S. 493 (citing Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 617 (1973)).

         This is because “[t]here must be a personal stake in the outcome such as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.” Id. at 494. “Abstract injury is not enough. It must be alleged that the plaintiff has sustained or is immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of the challenged statute or official conduct.” Id. “[P]rudential considerations” also require the court to abstain from rendering decisions that are premature or abstract or that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.