Bah

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MAMADOU ALPHA BAH, : Civil No. 1:26-CV-00978

:

Petitioner, :

:

v. :

:

CRAIG LOWE, et al., :

:

Respondents. : Judge Jennifer P. Wilson

MEMORANDUM

Before the court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 filed by Petitioner Mamadou Alpha Bah (“Bah”). (Doc. 1.) Bah argues

that his prolonged detention without a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c)

violates his due process rights and asks the court to order a prompt bond hearing

before an immigration judge. For the reasons that follow, the court will grant

Bah’s petition and order an individualized bond hearing before an immigration

judge.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Bah is a native and citizen of Guinea, who arrived in the United States in

approximately 2007. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 1, 23.) In 2010, Bah applied for and was granted

asylum and in 2013, Bah became a lawful permanent resident. (Id. ¶¶ 24–25.) In

2023, Bah pleaded guilty in federal court to aggravated identity theft and was

sentenced to 24 months imprisonment. (Id. ¶¶ 27.) On April 25, 2024,

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) issued a notice to appear charging

Bah with violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”)

§§ 237(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii) because he was convicted of a crime involving moral

turpitude and an aggravated felony. (Doc. 5, p. 2.)1 On October 11, 2024, Bah

was released from the Federal Bureau of Prisons custody and immediately

transferred to ICE custody. (Doc. 1, ¶ 28.) He was initially detained at Clinton

County Correctional Facility and in November 2025, transferred to Pike County

Correctional Facility, where he remains detained. (Id. ¶¶ 28, 34.)

Once in ICE custody, removal proceedings were brought against Bah and

Bah, in turn, applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the

Convention Against Torture. (Id. ¶ 29.) On July 1, 2025, an immigration judge

denied his application for relief. (Id. ¶ 30.) Bah appealed that decision to the

Board of Immigration Appeals. (Id. ¶ 31.) His appeal remains pending with

briefing deadlines in April 2026. (Id. ¶¶ 31–32; Doc. 5-7, p. 2.) Bah has remained

in ICE custody since October 2024 and has not received a bond hearing. (Id. ¶ 33.)

On April 16, 2026, Bah filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus against

Craig Lowe, in his official capacity as Warden of Pike County Correctional

Facility; Michael Rose, in his official capacity as Acting Philadelphia ICE Field

Office; Markwayne Mullin, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department

1 For ease of reference, the court uses the page numbers from the CM/ECF header.

of Homeland Security; and Todd Blanche, in his official capacity as Acting

Attorney General of the United States (collectively, “Respondents”).2 (Doc. 1.)

Respondents filed a response on May 5, 2026, and Bah filed a traverse on May 15,

2026. (Docs. 5, 6.) Thus, this petition is ripe for review.

JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which allows a district

court to exercise subject matter jurisdiction in civil cases arising under the

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), a district court may consider a writ of

habeas corpus when an immigration detainee is “in custody in violation of the

Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

DISCUSSION

Bah states that he has been detained in continuous ICE custody since

October 2024 without a bond hearing. (Doc. 1, ¶ 33.) He submits that the

conditions at Pike County Correctional Facility are indistinguishable from criminal

incarceration and that he is held with individuals serving criminal sentences. (Id.

2 Respondents submit that the only proper respondent is Craig Lowe because he is the Warden of

Pike County Correctional Facility. (Doc. 5, p. 3.) In this case, consistent with Rumsfeld v.

Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447 (2004), Petitioner has named the Warden as a respondent. Padilla,

542 U.S. at 447 (“Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical

custody within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent.”) Because

Petitioner has named a proper respondent, the court does not deem it necessary to determine

whether the other named Respondents should be dismissed.

¶¶ 35–36.) Bah argues that this prolonged detention without a bond hearing

violates his Fifth Amendment Due Process rights and that he is entitled to a prompt

bond hearing. (Id. ¶¶ 41–61.) Bah requests the following forms of relief: a

declaration that Bah’s prolonged detention without a bond hearing violates the Due

Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment; convene a bond hearing or order an

individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge within 14 days with the

burden of proof on Respondents to establish by clear and convincing evidence that

Bah poses a flight risk or is a danger to the community; retain jurisdiction over this

matter while the bond matter is litigated; and award costs and attorney’s fees under

the Equal Access to Justice Act (“EAJA”), 28 U.S.C. § 2412. (Doc. 1, p. 20.)

Respondents assert that there is no dispute that Bah is subject to mandatory

detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c). (Doc. 5, p. 3.) Applying the test set forth by

the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in German Santos v. Warden Pike County

Correctional Facility, 965 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2020), Respondents argue that

each factor weighs against Bah. (Doc. 5, pp. 3–6.)

Section 1226(c) requires mandatory detention of aliens previously convicted

of certain criminal offenses. Although there is no statutory limit on the length of

time a detainee may be detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c), a petitioner may still

bring an as-applied constitutional challenge alleging that his continued detention

has become unconstitutional and unreasonable under the Due Process Clause of the

Fifth Amendment. Jennings v. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. 281, 304 (2018); German

Santos, 965 F.3d at 208–09. When considering whether the petitioner’s detention

has become unreasonable, “[t]he most important factor is the duration of

detention.” German Santos, 965 F.3d at 211. The court must additionally consider

“all the other circumstances” of the detention, including (1) “whether the detention

is likely to continue,” (2) “the reasons for the delay, such as a detainee’s request

for continuances,” and (3) “whether the alien’s conditions of confinement are

‘meaningfully different’ from criminal punishment.” Id. (quoting Chavez-Alvarez

v. Warden York Ctny. Prison, 783 F.3d 469, 478 (3d Cir. 2015)).

Applying the German Santos factors to this case, the court will grant Bah’s

petition for writ of habeas corpus and order Respondents provide Bah with a bond

hearing before an immigration judge. First, with respect to the duration of Bah’s

detention, he has been in ICE custody since October 11, 2024, a period of

approximately 19 months. Courts in this District have split as to whether detention

for approximately 19 months is unreasonable. Compare Baptista v. Lowe, No.

1:23-cv-1666, 2024 WL 3410600, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2024), report and

recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 3410587 (M.D. Pa. May 7, 2024) (finding 19

months unreasonable), and Malede v. Lowe, No. 1:22-cv-1031, 2022 WL 3084304,

at *5 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 3, 2022) (finding 18 months unreasonable), with Appiah v.

Lowe, No. 3:24-cv-2222, 2025 WL 510974, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 14, 2025)

(holding that being detained for 18 months did not weigh in petitioner’s favor).

This court finds that Bah’s 19 months in detention weighs in his favor.

Second, with respect to the likelihood of continued detention, Bah submits

that his detention is unlikely to end soon as his appeal is still pending before the

BIA. (Doc. 1, ¶ 45.) Respondents argue that this factor weighs against Bah as he

has a removal order pending before the BIA and submits that briefs in the appeal

were due in April 2026. (Doc. 5, p. 6; Doc. 5-7, p. 2.) The court agrees with Bah

that his detention will continue for an indeterminate amount of time as the BIA has

just received briefs and not yet issued a decision. Thus, this factor weighs in Bah’s

favor.

Third, there is no evidence that either party has caused unnecessary delays in

Bah’s immigration proceedings. The court may not “hold an alien’s good-faith

challenge to his removal against him, even if his appeals or applications for relief

have drawn out the proceedings.” German Santos, 965 F.3d at 211 (citing Chavez-

Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 476–77). Nor may the court hold “the agency’s legal errors

against the Government, unless there is evidence of carelessness or bad faith.” Id.

Therefore, this factor is neutral.

Lastly, turning to Bah’s conditions of confinement, Bah argues that the

conditions at Pike County Correctional Facility are not meaningfully different from

criminal custody. (Doc. 1, ¶ 47.) Respondents submit that although Bah is

detained at Pike County Correctional Facility, he is not confined to a cell for 23

hours per day like the petitioner in German Santos. (Doc. 5, p. 6.) In German

Santos, the Third Circuit found that detention at Pike County Correctional Facility

was “indistinguishable from criminal punishment” because petitioner was detained

alongside those convicted for crimes. 965 F.3d at 212–13. Here, Bah does not

allege that he is confined to his cell for 23 hours per day, but he is housed with

convicted criminals. Accordingly, this factor weighs in Bah’s favor.

In sum, applying the German Santos factors to Bah’s circumstances, the

court finds that his detention has become unreasonably prolonged without the

opportunity for a bond hearing.

Bah also requests attorney’s fees and costs under the EAJA. (Doc. 1, p. 20.)

Respondents request that the court defer any decision on EAJA fees until an

appropriate motion is made by Bah and that the motion should not be entertained

until final judgment is entered in this case. (Doc. 5, pp. 7–8.) The court will not

make a determination of fees and costs here, but will permit Bah to file an

appropriate motion for costs and fees pursuant to the EAJA within thirty days of

the entry of final judgment.

CONCLUSION

Thus, the court will grant Bah’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and order

an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge. An appropriate order

follows.

s/Jennifer P. Wilson

JENNIFER P. WILSON

United States District Judge

Middle District of Pennsylvania

Dated: May 19, 2026