Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Zakariya Abdikarim,
Petitioner,
v.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement –
St. Paul Field Office; Markwayne Mullin,
U.S. Secretary Homeland Security; and
Todd Blanche, U.S. Attorney General,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-CV-2395 (LMP/SGE)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Zakariya Abdikarim is currently serving a lengthy sentence for a
conviction in state court on drug charges. See State of Minnesota v. Abdikarim, No. 56-
CR-24-395 (Minn. Dist. Ct.). Abdikarim is also, independent of that conviction, subject to
a final order of removal from the United States. U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”) has lodged a detainer with the Minnesota Department of Corrections
with respect to Abdikarim (“MDOC”)—in effect, ICE has requested that MDOC notify the
agency prior to Abdikarim’s release so that ICE can take Abdikarim into its own custody
in order to effectuate the removal order. Abdikarim contends in a petition for a writ of
habeas corpus now before the Court that he cannot be removed to his native country of
Somalia because he was granted protection from removal under the Convention Against
Torture. Abdikarim asks that the Court declare the ICE detainer to be unlawful, because
CASE 0:26-cv-02395-LMP-SGE Doc. 2 Filed 05/01/26 Page 1 of 5

2
(Abdikarim contends) ICE cannot lawfully take custody of him at the conclusion of his
term of imprisonment if there is no likelihood that he will be removed to Somalia.
Abdikarim’s habeas petition is now before the Court for preliminary review
pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District
Courts. As a result of that review, this Court concludes that the habeas petition should be
summarily denied and this case dismissed.
There are two major problems with the habeas petition. The first problem is that
Abdikarim has not plausibly alleged that the ICE detainer is, in fact, unlawful. That
Abdikarim has been barred from removal to Somalia does not mean that he cannot be
removed from the United States, see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)(E), and the federal government
will be entitled to take Abdikarim into its custody in order to effectuate a third-country
removal should such a removal be “reasonably foreseeable” when Abdikarim is taken into
federal custody, Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 699 (2001). It is entirely too early to
say whether a third-country removal will or will not be reasonably foreseeable several years
from now when Abdikarim’s term of imprisonment ends, and thus it is entirely too early
to say whether an effort by the federal government to bring Abdikarim into custody—if
such an effort is made—will prove to be unlawful. Abdikarim’s claim is premature.
The second problem with the petition is that Abdikarim has already sought habeas
relief on an identical basis. See Abdikarim v. Pugh, No. 26-CV-2021 (JRT/LIB) (D. Minn.
filed Mar. 24, 2026). That matter remains pending, though the petition in that matter has
also been recommended for denial because the claims being brought have been raised
prematurely. “A litigant cannot file duplicative habeas petition after duplicative habeas
CASE 0:26-cv-02395-LMP-SGE Doc. 2 Filed 05/01/26 Page 2 of 5

3
petition in the hope of someday finding a court that is amenable to the claims being raised.”
Giffen v. Warden FMC Rochester, No. 25-CV-0292 (PJS/DTS), 2025 WL 1368624, at *1
(D. Minn. Jan. 30, 2025). Doing so is an abuse of the writ, and an abuse of the writ is basis
enough to dismiss a habeas petition. See, e.g., Zuniga-Hernandez v. Reese, No. 02-CV-
0718, 2002 WL 31553539, at *1-2 (D. Minn. Nov. 14, 2022) (citing McCleskey v. Zant,
499 U.S. 467, 490 (1991)).1 There was no good reason for Abdikarim to have filed this
latest habeas action when his prior, substantively identical petition remains pending.
Finally, Abdikarim also challenges the ICE detainer from a different angle—not
only that it will lead to unlawful immigration detention in the future, but also that it
amounts to “cruel and unusual punishment” now, because it has resulted in MDOC
deeming him ineligible for certain programs while he is in prison. See Petition at 7
[Dkt. 1]. But Abdikarim has also raised this claim already through yet another habeas
petition, and that petition also remains pending. See Abdikarim v. Schnell, No. 26-CV-
2052 (JWB/ECW) (D. Minn. filed Mar. 26, 2026). Insofar as Abdikarim contends that the
ICE detainer might unlawfully affect the length of his state sentence, that claim can be
1 Duplicative filings are also a basis upon which to restrict a litigant’s ability to initiate new
litigation absent prior judicial approval. See In re Tyler, 839 F.2d 1290, 1292 (8th Cir.
1988). Although this Court does not recommend imposition of such a filing restriction at
this time, this Court does note that (1) Abdikarim has filed no fewer than four habeas
petitions in this District since March 2026; and (2) Abdikarim has a long history of
meritless litigation in federal court predating his conviction, so much so that he is now
ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis in non-habeas civil proceedings, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). Given that a substantially identical habeas petition from Abdikarim is already
pending, this Court does not believe that the habeas petition now before the Court was filed
in good faith. If Abdikarim continues to file similarly duplicative or otherwise meritless
documents, his ability to continue initiating new proceedings may be restricted.
CASE 0:26-cv-02395-LMP-SGE Doc. 2 Filed 05/01/26 Page 3 of 5

4
litigated in the proceeding in which he first brought the claim. To the extent that Abdikarim
alleges that the ICE detainer has resulted in the current conditions of his confinement being
unlawful, such a claim could not be raised through a habeas petition. See Spencer v.
Haynes, 774 F.3d 467, 469 (8th Cir. 2014). Abdikarim could proceed with such a claim
only through a non-habeas civil action—for which Abdikarim will be required to pay the
full, non-habeas filing fee of $405.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
Accordingly, it is recommended that Abdikarim’s habeas petition be denied without
prejudice and this case dismissed.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT
IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:
1. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus of petitioner Zakariya Abdikarim
[Dkt. 1] be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
2. This matter be DISMISSED.
Dated: May 1, 2026 s/Shannon G. Elkins
Shannon G. Elkins
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:26-cv-02395-LMP-SGE Doc. 2 Filed 05/01/26 Page 4 of 5

5
NOTICE
Filing Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a
magistrate judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being
served a copy” of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those
objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. See Local
Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set
forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:26-cv-02395-LMP-SGE Doc. 2 Filed 05/01/26 Page 5 of 5