The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
NORMAN BUTTE, CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-CV-487-P
Petitioner
VERSUS JUDGE DEE D. DRELL
WILLIAM BARR, MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEREZ-MONTES
Respondent
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. §
2241 (Doc. 1) filed by pro se Petitioner Norman Butte (“Butte”) (#A074918705). Butte
is an immigration detainee in the custody of the Department of Homeland
Security/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“DHS/ICE”). He is being
detained at the LaSalle Detention Center in Jena, Louisiana.
Because Butte fails to provide sufficient factual allegations to support his
claim, Butte must AMEND his Petition.
I. Background
Butte claims that his detention violates the rule announced in Zadvydas v.
Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), because he has been detained in excess of six months, and
there is no significant likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
II. Instructions to Amend
Under Zadvydas, it is presumptively constitutional for an alien to be detained
for six months past the 90-day removal period following a final order of removal. Id.
After the expiration of the six-month period, an alien may seek his release from
custody by demonstrating a “good reason to believe that there is no significant
likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Agyei–Kodie v. Holder,
418 F. App’x 317, 318 (5th Cir. 2011). Not every alien in custody will be entitled to
automatic release after the expiration of the six-month period under the scheme
announced in Zadvydas.
In Andrade v. Gonzales 459 F.3d 538 (5th Cir. 2006), the Fifth Circuit Court
of Appeals reiterated that the Supreme Court’s holding in Zadvydas creates no
specific limits on detention. In fact, an alien may be held in confinement until it has
been determined that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future. Id. at 543 (citing Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701). The alien bears the
initial burden of proof to show that no such likelihood of removal exists. Id.
Butte should amend his complaint and provide: (1) documentation showing
when and where he entered the United States, and from what country; (2) any notice
to appear that he received; (3) the date on which he was ordered removed; (4) a copy
of the deportation/removal order issued by the immigration judge; (5) whether he
appealed the removal order to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”); (6) a copy
of the BIA’s decision/order dismissing Butte’s appeal; and (7) copies of any notices of
review of Butte’s custody status. Butte must also explain why there is no significant
likelihood of his removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.
Ill. Conclusion
Because Butte fails to provide sufficient factual allegations to support his
claim, IT IS ORDERED that Butte AMEND his Petition (Doc. 1) within 30 days of
the filing of this Order to provide the information outlined above.
Failure to comply with this Order may result in dismissal of this action under
Rule 41(b) or 16(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner is further
required to notify the Court of any change in his address under Rule 41.3 of the Local
Rules for the Western District of Louisiana.
THUS DONE AND SIGNED in chambers in Alexandria, Louisiana, this
_21st__ day of May, 2019. iT |
Joseph HL. £T.- ontes
United States Magistrate Judge