United States District Court, S.D. Florida
Abed Rabboh 2241/Bivens U.S. Attorney
REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE P.A. WHITE
petitioner, Rami Abed Rabboh, while confined at the local
Krome Service Processing Center, 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.
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
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.
Legal Standard of Review
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).
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.
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.
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)).
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