The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9 KABA DIAWARA Case No.: 26-cv-2025-BJC-AHG
10 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITION OF
HABEAS CORPUS
11 v.
12 MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Secretary of
the Department of Homeland Security, et [ECF No. 14]
13
al.
14
Respondents.
15
16
Before the Court is Kaba Diawara’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for a Writ of Habeas
17
Corpus that was filed on March 31, 2026. ECF No. 1. On April 20, 2026, Petitioner filed
18
an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. 7. Respondents filed a Return
19
to the Petition, ECF No. 10, and Petitioner filed a Traverse. ECF No. 12. For the reasons
20
set forth below, the Petition is GRANTED.
21
I. BACKGROUND
22
Petitioner is a native and citizen of Guinea who entered the United States without
23
inspection and was apprehended upon entry on June 13, 2025. ECF No. 10 at 2. On August
24
18, 2025, Petitioner was issued a Notice to Appear, thereby initiating immigration
25
proceedings pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(A)(i). Id. On January 6, 2026, an
26
Immigration Judge (“IJ”) ordered Petitioner to be removed to Uganda. Id. Petitioner did
27
not file an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and the IJ’s order became final on
28
1 February 5, 2026. Id; ECF No. 10 at 4. Petitioner has continued to remain in detention
2 since his arrival on June 13, 2025. See ECF No. 13 at 2. For the following reasons, the
3 Court GRANTS the Petition.
4 II. LEGAL STANDARD
5 A writ of habeas corpus is “available to every individual detained within the United
6 States.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 525 (2004) (citing U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, cl.
7 2). “The essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of
8 that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal
9 custody.” Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a
10 district court has the authority to grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in
11 custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.
12 § 2241(c)(3). The Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in
13 violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §
14 2241(c)(3).
15 III. DISCUSSION
16 A. Detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231
17 Section 1231 governs the arrest and detention of noncitizens subject to a final
18 removal order. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231. It directs the Attorney General to effectuate removal
19 “within a period of 90 days,” known as the “removal period,” during which detention is
20 authorized. § 1231(a)(1)–(2). In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court clarified that detention
21 beyond the removal period is presumptively lawful for up to six months; after that, a
22 noncitizen may make a prima facie case for relief by sharing “good reason to believe that
23 there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future,” at which
24 point the burden shifts to “the Government [to] respond with evidence sufficient to rebut
25 that showing.” 533. U.S. at 701.
26 The Court finds that Petitioner has satisfied his burden under Zadvydas. Petitioner
27 was ordered removed on January 6, 2026, ECF No. 10 at 2, and the six-month presumptive
28 detention period has expired. While Respondent notes efforts from ERO to obtain travel
1 documents, it has not shown that Uganda has agreed to or will agree to accept the Petitioner.
2 generally ECF No. 10 at 2-3. The Court finds that mere good-faith efforts are
3 ||insufficient under Zadvydas. See Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 443 F.3d 1069, 1081-82 (9th
4 ||Cir. 2006) (holding that the government lacked authority to detain an individual
5 indefinitely under § 1231 where removal was not reasonably foreseeable despite ongoing
6 || diplomatic efforts). Continued detention must be justified by a significant likelihood of
7 ||removal within a reasonably foreseeable period, and Respondents have failed to meet that
8 || standard.
9 IV. CONCLUSION
10 For the reasons set forth above, the Court concludes that Petitioner’s continued
11 |/detention is unlawful. Petitioner’s Writ of Habeas Corpus is GRANTED. Respondents
12 immediately release Petitioner. The Clerk of Court shall close this matter.
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15 || Dated: September 14, 2026
16
18
19 Honorable Benjamin J. Cheeks
United States District Judge
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28