Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SALMON MAMADZHONOV, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. 26-3038-JWL
)
C. CARTER, Warden, FCI-Leavenworth; )
TODD LYONS, Acting Director, )
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; )
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, )
Department of Homeland Security; and )
PAM BONDI, Attorney General, )
)
Respondents. )
)
____________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner, acting pro se, filed a petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
by which he challenges his detention by immigration officials. For the reasons set forth
below, the Court denies the petition.
Petitioner, a native of Russia, entered the United States in July 2023, although
removal proceedings were initiated at that time. On August 11, 2025, immigration officials
took petitioner into custody, and on December 3, 2025, an immigration judge ordered
petitioner’s removal to Russia (with petitioner waiving appeal of that order). Petitioner is
presently detained within this judicial district. On February 26, 2026, petitioner filed the
instant petition. Respondents filed an answer to the petition, and the deadline for a reply
brief has expired, and the matter is therefore ripe for ruling.
Case 5:26-cv-03038-JWL Document 7 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 3

2
The Court first rejects petitioner’s claim that his detention has become unreasonably
indefinite under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). In that case, the Supreme Court
held that although an alien may not be detained indefinitely pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a),
the detention of an alien subject to a final order of removal for up to six months is
presumptively reasonable in view of the time required to accomplish removal. See id. at
699-701. The Supreme Court further held that, beyond that six-month period, if the alien
shows that there is “no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable
future, the Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” See
id. at 701. Petitioner has not yet been detained for more than six months since his removal
order became final, however. Accordingly, because his detention remains presumptively
reasonable, petitioner’s claim under Section 1231 and Zadvydas fails.
The Court also rejects petitioner’s due process claim in which he alleges that he is
not being detained for the proper purpose of effecting his removal. Petitioner has cited no
authority suggesting that his detention during this period is unconstitutional. Nor has he
shown that his detention is for an improper purpose.
Finally, the Court rejects petitioner’s claim based on a violation of regulations found
at 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4, 241.13. Respondents have submitted evidence that petitioner has
received a custody review, and petitioner has not shown or even explained with specificity
how the Government has failed to comply with any particular applicable regulation with
respect to his detention. The petition is therefore denied in its entirety.
Case 5:26-cv-03038-JWL Document 7 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 3

3
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT THAT the petition for habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 30th day of April, 2026, in Kansas City, Kansas.
/s/ John W. Lungstrum
Hon. John W. Lungstrum
United States District Judge
Case 5:26-cv-03038-JWL Document 7 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 3