Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
GOSWAMI MANPREET,
Petitioner,
v. 	No. 26-cv-1236-KWR-DLM
MARY DE ANDA-YBARRA, et al,
Respondents,
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Petitioner’s pro se Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 1) (Petition). 	Petitioner seeks a release from immigration
detention or a review of the legality of his custody. 	Because his detention appears presumptively
reasonable under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001), the Court will require him to show
cause, if any, why the Petition should not be dismissed without prejudice.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner is a citizen of India. 	He is currently detained at the Cibola County Correctional
Center (CCCC) in Milan, New Mexico. 	Petitioner entered the United States in 2022 on a student
visa, but he ceased his studies four months later. 	See Doc. 1 at 4. 	Petitioner was arrested for
child solicitation on October 30, 2025. 	Id. at 5. 	He was taken into Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) custody after posting bond in the Indiana criminal case. 	Id. 	The immigration
court entered a removal order on January 13, 2026. 	Id. at 6. 	Petitioner did not appeal, and the
immigration order is now final. 	Id; see also Riley v. Bondi, 606 U.S. 259, 267 (2025) (a removal
order is final if the noncitizen does not appeal within 30 days).
Petitioner filed the instant Petition on April 20, 2026. 	He raises a claim for prolonged
Case 1:26-cv-01236-KWR-DLM Document 3 Filed 05/06/26 Page 1 of 3

2
detention under Zadvydas and alleges his civil immigration detention is actually criminal in nature.
Petitioner asks the Court to release him or order a bond hearing. 	See Doc. 1 at 12.
DISCUSSION
Habeas corpus relief is available if a noncitizen is “in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 	28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see also Zadvydas
v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). 	Courts conduct an initial review of pro se habeas petitions to
determine whether the claims raise a colorable request for relief. 	See Habeas Corpus Rules 1, 4.
“If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the moving party is not
entitled to relief in the district court, the Judge must dismiss the petition.” 	Habeas Corpus Rule
4(b). 	“If the petition is not dismissed, the Judge must order … an answer.” 	Id.
Where, as here, the petitioner is subject to a final order of removal, detention is governed
by 8 U.S.C. § 1231. 	The Government is expected to secure a noncitizen’s removal within 90 days
after issuing the removal order. 	See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 682; 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1). 	“During
the 90-day removal period, … [the noncitizen] must be held in custody.” 	Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at
683 (citing § 1231). 	After that, the Government may continue detaining the noncitizen only for
as long as is “reasonably necessary” to secure their removal. 	Id.; see 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). 	The
Supreme Court determined that a six-month detention period is presumptively reasonable.
Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701. 	“After this 6-month period, … the Government must respond with
evidence sufficient to rebut [th]e showing” that the custody is unconstitutional. 	Id.
Petitioner’s final removal order was entered less than six months ago on January 13, 2026.
His detention is therefore presumptively reasonable under Zadvydas. 	Noncitizens detained
pursuant to § 1231 are also not entitled to a bond hearing. 	See Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594
Case 1:26-cv-01236-KWR-DLM Document 3 Filed 05/06/26 Page 2 of 3

3
U.S. 523, 526 (2021) (“We conclude that § 1231, not § 1226, governs the detention of [noncitizens]
subject to … orders of removal, meaning those [noncitizens] are not entitled to a bond hearing”).
Petitioner argues his immigration detention is actually criminal in nature, as he may be subject to
a detainer or extradition to Indiana. 	Said differently, Petitioner argues that while noncitizens with
no criminal history can be detained for up to six months, he is entitled to a release before the six-
month period based on his pending proceeding for child solicitation. 	Petitioner has not cited, and
the Court has not uncovered, authority stating that the six-month period is cut short under such
circumstances. 	The Court also notes that the issue could resolve within the six-month period, if
the State of Indiana decides not to pursue a prosecution in light of the removal order.
For these reasons, the Court will require Petitioner to file a response showing cause, if any,
why the Petition should not be summarily dismissed without prejudice. 	The show-cause response
is due within twenty (21) days of entry of this Order. 	By the same deadline, Petitioner shall file
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis or pay the $5.00 filing fee. 	If Petitioner declines to timely
comply with this ruling, or if his response fails to overcome the Zadvydas framework, the Court
may dismiss the case without prejudice.
IT IS ORDERED that within twenty-one (21) days of entry of this Order, Petitioner: (1)
shall file a show-cause response, as set forth above; and (2) pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis.
____/S/______________________________
KEA W. RIGGS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-01236-KWR-DLM Document 3 Filed 05/06/26 Page 3 of 3