Opinion

Darrius

Court
District Court, M.D. Florida
Filed
Apr 6, 2026
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 41.3%

The opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

JACKSONVILLE DIVISION

RYAN DARRIUS,

Petitioner,

v. Case No. 3:25-cv-1531-WWB-PDB

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

GENERAL, et al.,

Respondents.

___________________________________

ORDER

Petitioner, a citizen and native of the Bahamas, initiated this action by filing a pro

se Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). Immigration

and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) is currently detaining Petitioner at the Baker County

Detention Center. (Id.). According to Petitioner, an immigration judge ordered him

removed in March 2025, and ICE took him into custody to execute his removal on May 1,

2025. (Id. at 4). Petitioner asserts he appealed the immigration judge’s decision to the

Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) and that appeal is still pending. (Id. at 5). He

argues that he has remained in ICE custody since May 2025, and his detention has

become unreasonably prolonged in violation of his rights under the Due Process Clause

of the Fifth Amendment and seemingly under the purviews of Zadvydas v. Davis, 533

U.S. 678 (2001). (Id. at 6–7). As relief, Petitioner requests that the Court order his

immediate release. (Id. at 7).

Respondents filed a Response arguing that the Petition is premature because

Petitioner’s appeal with the BIA is still pending.1 (Doc. 8 at 7). Because of his pending

appeal, Respondents contend Petitioner’s order of removal is not final, and thus his

“removal period” has not yet begun. (Id. at 7–8). Petitioner was afforded an opportunity

to file a reply to Respondents’ Response and he declined to do so. (Doc. 4).

In Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690, the Supreme Court held that indefinite detention of

aliens raises serious constitutional concerns. Once an order of removal is final, ICE

should make every effort to remove the alien within a reasonable time. Id. at 701. The

Court also concluded that six months is a presumptively reasonable period to detain a

removable alien awaiting deportation. Id. “Although not expressly stated, the Supreme

Court appears to view the six-month period to include the 90-day removal period plus 90

days thereafter.” Akinwale v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050, 1052 (11th Cir. 2002).

The “removal period” begins on the latest of three dates: (1) the date on which the

order of removal becomes administratively final; (2) “[i]f the removal order is judicially

reviewed and if a court orders a stay of the removal of the alien, the date of the court’s

final order”; or (3) “[i]f the alien is detained or confined (except under an immigration

process), the date the alien is released from detention or confinement.” See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1231(a)(1)(B); see also 8 C.F.R. § 1241.1(a)–(f) (outlining the procedural circumstances

that render a removal order final). The Attorney General must detain an alien during his

removal period. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2).

1 Respondents also argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction and that Petitioner has

failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. (See generally Doc. 8 at 1–6).

Here, a review of the Executive Office for Immigration Review's (“EOIR”) website

shows that Petitioner filed with the BIA an appeal of his March 2025 removal order on

April 14, 2025, and that his appeal is currently pending. See EOIR, Automated Case

Information, available at www.acis.eoir.justice.gov (last visited Apr. 3, 2026). Therefore,

Petitioner's removal period has not yet begun and Petitioner’s request for relief is

premature. See Farah v. United States Att'y Gen., 12 F.4th 1312, 1332 (11th Cir. 2021)

(finding that the petitioner's removal period had not started because the Eleventh Circuit

stayed the removal pending judicial review and it had not yet issued its final order). As

such, this action is dismissed.

Accordingly, itis ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:

1. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice.

2. The Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing this case without prejudice,

terminate any pending motions, and close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED in Jacksonville, Florida, on April 6, 2026.

vs

\

UNITED STATES T T JUDG

Jax-7

C: Ryan Darrius, A209214641

Counsel of record

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.