# Darrius

> District Court, M.D. Florida · April 6, 2026

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11365228

## Case

- **Full name:** Ryan Darrius v. United States Attorney General, et al.
- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** April 6, 2026
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11365228

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/11365228. Public record. Not legal advice.