Cardenas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 26-cv-21767-BLOOM

ROBERTO PATTERSON CARDENAS,

Petitioner,

v.

TODD LYONS,

Respondent.

_____________________________________/

ORDER

THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Petitioner Roberto Patterson Cardenas’s

(“Petitioner”) Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”).

ECF No. [1]. Petitioner challenges his immigration detention at the Krome Service Processing

Center in Miami, Florida, and seeks release from custody or a bond hearing before an immigration

judge. Id. ¶¶ 2, 5, 15. In Response, Respondent argues that the Petition must be dismissed as

premature because, inter alia, Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), and Petitioner

has not shown post-removal order detention in excess of six months under Zadvydas. ECF No. [7]

at 5. In Reply, Petitioner concedes that his detention has not yet exceeded the six-month

presumptively reasonable period recognized in Zadvydas. ECF No. [15]. The Court has reviewed

the Petition, Response, Reply, the record in this case, the applicable law, and is otherwise fully

advised. For the following reasons, the Court agrees with Respondent that the Petition must be

dismissed as premature.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On March 17, 2026, pro se Petitioner Roberto Patterson Cardenas filed this Petition for a

Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. [1]. Petitioner is a native and citizen of Cuba. ECF No. [8-1] at

1. Petitioner was paroled into the United States at Key West, Florida, on March 23, 1994. Id.

Petitioner adjusted his status to that of a Lawful Permanent Resident on January 25, 1996, as of

February 23, 1994. Id. On April 5, 2001, Petitioner was convicted in Miami-Dade County, Florida

of Robbery/Armed and Firearm/Use During a Felony and sentenced to serve three years of

imprisonment. Id. Based on these convictions, Petitioner was placed in removal proceedings under

§§ 237(a)(2)(iii) and 237(a)(2)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”). Id.

On June 19, 2001, an immigration judge ordered Petitioner removed from the United

States. ECF No. [8-2] at 1. The order indicates that Petitioner reserved his right to appeal, id., but

Petitioner points out that he never filed an appeal related to this order, ECF No. [1] ¶ 14. Petitioner

was detained by immigration officials on November 18, 2002, and later released on an Order of

Supervision (“OSUP”) on May 21, 2003. ECF No. [9-1]. On November 14, 2025, Immigration

and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”) encountered

Petitioner and revoked his OSUP to effectuate his removal. ECF No. [9-2] at 1. Petitioner was

taken into ICE custody on November 15, 2025. ECF No. [9-1]. An informal interview was

conducted on that date. Id.

On January 11, 2026, Petitioner was served with a Notice of Removal, informing Petitioner

that ICE intends to remove him to Mexico. ECF No. [17-1]. ICE ERO attempted to remove

Petitioner to Mexico on February 25, 2026, but despite multiple attempts, Petitioner refused to exit

the holding room. ECF No. [9-3] ¶ 9. Petitioner is currently detained at the Krome North Service

Processing Center in Miami, Florida. ECF No. [9-1]. Petitioner now brings this action challenging

the constitutionality of his detention and seeking release from custody or an individualized bond

hearing before an immigration judge. ECF No. [1] ¶¶ 13, 15.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

District courts have the authority to grant writs of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a).

Habeas corpus is fundamentally “a remedy for unlawful executive detention.” Munaf v. Geren,

553 U.S. 674, 693 (2008) (citation omitted). A writ may be issued to a petitioner who demonstrates

that he is being held in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. See 28 U.S.C. §

2241(c)(3). The Court’s jurisdiction extends to challenges involving immigration-related

detention. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001).

III. DISCUSSION

Petitioner moves for habeas relief and argues that his detention is unlawful under the U.S.

Supreme Court’s decision in Zadvydas. ECF No. [1] ¶ 13. But Petitioner challenges a post-removal

detention order, which calls for a specific period of detention before seeking relief under

established principles of this Circuit. For the reasons stated, Petitioner’s request is premature and

must be dismissed.

Section 1231(a) applies to aliens who are subject to a final order of removal. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231(a). When an alien is ordered removed, “the Attorney General shall remove the alien from

the United States within a period of 90 days[,]” which is known as the “removal period.” Id. Once

the order of removal is finalized, the Government should do its best to execute removal during the

ninety-day period. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 699-701. Sometimes the Government does not timely

remove the petitioner, so the indefinite detention of an alien “raises serious constitutional

concerns.” Sosa v. Warden, Baker Corr. Inst., No. 26-cv-51, 2026 WL 592434, at *2 (M.D. Fla.

Mar. 3, 2026). “The Supreme Court in Zadvydas held that six months is a presumptively reasonable

period to detain a removable alien awaiting deportation.” Id.

As an initial matter, Petitioner was ordered removed in June 2001. ECF No. [8-2] at 1.

Petitioner did not appeal the order of removal with the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”).

See ECF No. [1] ¶ 14 (“I have never filed an appeal related to my Order of Deportation.”); see also

ECF No. [8-3] at 2. Petitioner’s failure to appeal the order of removal within the allotted time

renders the removal order final. Tuslova v. U.S. Atty. Gen., 540 F. App’x 961, 962 (11th Cir. 2014)

(“The Petitioners did not file an appeal with the BIA, making the IJ’s removal order final.” (citing

8 C.F.R. § 1003.39)). Because Petitioner is subject to a final order of removal, he is detained

pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) and is not entitled to a bond hearing. See Johnson v. Guzman

Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 526 (2021) (noncitizens subject to removal under § 1231 are “not entitled

to bond hearings”); see also Shaikh v. Meade, No. 21-cv-23752, 2022 WL 84420, at *5 (S.D. Fla.

Mar. 22, 2022) (“Given the unambiguous language of the Supreme Court’s most recent holding

[in Guzman] that noncitizens detained for removal under § 1231 are not entitled to a bond hearing,

the Court determines that Petitioner is not entitled to a bond hearing.”).

To obtain relief from a post-removal order of detention under the Zadvydas framework, a

petitioner must: “(1) show that he’s been detained for more than six months; and (2) establish that

there’s no significant likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future.” Flores-Reyes v. Assistant

Field Off. Dir., No. 26-cv-20226, 2026 WL 406708, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2026) (citing

Akinwale v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050, 1052 (11th Cir. 2002) (“[T]o state a claim under Zadvydas

the alien not only must show post-removal order detention in excess of six months but also must

provide evidence of a good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in

the reasonably foreseeable future.”)).

Here, Petitioner was ordered removed in June 2001, so this challenge is governed by

Zadvydas. See ECF No. [8-2] at 1. However, Petitioner was detained beginning on November 15,

2025, ECF No. [9-1], and the instant Petition was filed on March 17, 2026. See ECF No. [1]. As

Case No. 26-cv-21767-BLOOM

such, his detention falls short of the time required to receive the benefit of the Zadvydas

presumption of unreasonableness. Therefore, Petitioner’s request is premature. See Flores-Reyes,

2026 WL 406708, at *2 (dismissing habeas petition as premature because the post-removal order

detention did not exceed six months).

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. [1], is

DISMISSED as premature.

2. This case is CLOSED, and all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on April 20, 2026.

BETH BLOOM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies provided to:

Roberto Patterson Cardenas, Pro Se

A-072-852-854

Krome Service Processing Center

Inmate Mail/Parcels

18201 SW 12th Street

Miami, FL 33194