Drammeh v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center

1
25-CV-3412 JLS (JLB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MUHAMADOU DRAMMEH,
Petitioner,
v.
KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25-CV-3412 JLS (JLB)
ORDER GRANTING FIRST
AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT
OF HABEAS CORPUS
(ECF No. 5)
Presently before the Court is Petitioner Muhamadou Drammeh’s First Amended
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 5). Also
before the Court is Respondents Kristi Noem’s (Secretary of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security), Pamela Bondi’s (Attorney General of the United States), Todd
Lyons’s (Acting Director of Immigration Customs Enforcement), Jesus Rocha’s (Acting
Field Director, San Diego Field Office), and Christopher LaRose’s (Senior Warden of Otay
Mesa Detention Center) (collectively, “Respondents”) Return in Opposition to the Habeas
Petition (“Ret.,” ECF No. 13), and Petitioner’s Traverse (“Traverse,” ECF No. 14). 	See
generally Docket. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s First
Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 5).
/ / /
Case 3:25-cv-03412-JLS-JLB Document 15 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 6

2
25-CV-3412 JLS (JLB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BACKGROUND
Petitioner, a Gambian national, has been detained by the United States Department
of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement division at the Otay Mesa
Detention Facility since August 19, 2025. 	Pet. at 3. 	In 2017, Petitioner was ordered
removed to Gambia. Ret. at 2. On November 13, 2019, Petitioner was deported to Gambia,
id., where “he experienced several years of persecution,” Pet. at 2. In late 2023, Petitioner
fled Gambia and arrived in the United States without authorization. 	Id. 	On January 3,
2024, Petitioner was apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol near Lukeville, Arizona. Ret. at
2. On January 12, 2024, Petitioner was released on an order of supervision. Id. Petitioner
“lived, studied, and worked in Los Angeles” for the next year and a half without issue. Pet.
at 2. 	Petitioner worked as a security guard in Los Angeles, attended a public school for
adult education seeking his GED, attended all his check-in appointments, and complied
with all conditions of his supervised release. 	Id. 	On August 19, 2025, Petitioner was
arrested at his ICE check-in appointment without notice or an informal interview. Id. at 3.
At the time of his arrest, “[t]he ICE officer told him ‘everything has changed, and . . . if
you want to fight your case, you have to be inside.’” 	Id. 	Petitioner now argues that ICE
did not comply with 8 C.F.R. § 241 or due process. Id.
LEGAL STANDARD
A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the
legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district of
his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The sole judicial
body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal is the
court of appeals. 	See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Alvarez–Barajas v. Gonzales,
418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat.
231, § 106(a)). 	However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral issues arising
independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of indefinite detention—
federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. 	Nadarajah v. Gonzales,
443 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez,
Case 3:25-cv-03412-JLS-JLB Document 15 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 6

3
25-CV-3412 JLS (JLB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
138 S. Ct. 830 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1048–49 (N.D. Cal.
2018) (citations omitted).
DISCUSSION
When an alien has been found to be unlawfully present in the United States and a
final order of removal has been entered, they must be detained for ninety days (90) pending
the government’s efforts to secure their removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1). This ninety-
day period is referred to as the “removal period.” 	§ 1231(a)(1)(A). 	After the removal
period, this statute “limits an alien’s post-removal-period detention to a period reasonably
necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States” and “does not permit
indefinite detention.” 	Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 (2001). A six-month period
of post-removal detention constitutes a “presumptively reasonable period of detention.”
Id. at 701. After this six-month period passes, the petitioner has the burden to “provide[]
good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably
foreseeable future.” 	Id. 	If petitioner satisfies their initial burden, it then shifts to the
Government to rebut that showing. Id. “[F]or detention to remain reasonable, as the period
of prior post-removal confinement grows, what counts as the ‘reasonably foreseeable
future’ conversely would have to shrink.” 	Id. 	“[O]nce removal is no longer reasonably
foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized by statute.” 	Id. at 699. 	In that
case, the alien’s release may be conditioned on any of the various forms of conditioned
release, including an order of supervised release. Id. at 700.
Once ICE releases a non-citizen on supervised release, “ICE’s ability to re-detain
that noncitizen is constrained by its own regulations.” Nouri v. Herrera, SA CV 25-1905-
JFW(DBT), 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171809, at *11 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 3, 2025) (internal
citation omitted). ICE may re-detain a non-citizen released on an Order of Supervision “if,
on account of changed circumstances, [ICE] determines that there is a significant likelihood
that 	the 	alien 	may 	be 	removed 	in 	the 	reasonably 	foreseeable 	future.” 	8 	C.F.R.
§ 241.13(i)(2). ICE may also re-detain if the non-citizen “violates any of the conditions of
release.” § 241.13(i)(1). If ICE chooses to re-detain, the non-citizen must “be notified of
Case 3:25-cv-03412-JLS-JLB Document 15 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 6

4
25-CV-3412 JLS (JLB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the reasons for revocation” and be afforded “an initial informal interview promptly after
[his] return to . . . custody to afford the alien an opportunity to respond to the reasons for
revocation stated in the notification.” 	§ 241.13(i)(3). 	The non-citizen may “submit any
evidence or information that [he] believes shows there is no significant likelihood [he may]
be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future, or that [he] has not violated the order of
supervision.” Id.
Here, Petitioner was ordered removed in 2017, removed to Gambia in 2019, and re-
entered the United States in 2023. 	Pet. at 2. 	Petitioner was released on an Order of
Supervision on January 12, 2024, presumably, because his removal was not foreseeable.
Ret. at 2; see Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 699–700 (“[I]f removal is not reasonably foreseeable,
the court should hold continued detention unreasonable and no longer authorized by
statute.”). Petitioner was re-detained by ICE agents at his annual ICE check-in on August
19, 2025. 	Pet. at 3. 	Petitioner was not provided written notice (or any notice) for the
reasons of his re-detention beyond a statement from the ICE officer that “everything has
changed, and . . . if you want to fight your case, you have to be inside.” Id.; see also Tran
v. Noem, No. 25-cv-2391 BTM (BLM), 2025 WL 3005347, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2025)
(holding that this “notice must be in writing and contain all the reasons for the revocation
of the alien’s release”); see also Xayakesone v. Noem, No. 25-cv-2995-JES-BJW, 2025
WL 3229102, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2025) (finding notice insufficient when it stated
that the “decision has been made based on a review of your official alien file and a
determination that there are changed circumstances in your case”); Rokhifirooz v. Larose,
No. 25-cv-2053-RSH-VET, 2025 WL 2646165, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2025) (same).
Further, ICE agents did not conduct an interview after Petitioner’s arrest, and in the
four months Petitioner has been detained, no interview has been conducted. 	Pet. at 4–5.
Petitioner, therefore, has not been provided with “an opportunity to respond to the reasons
for revocation stated in the notification,” 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3). “Petitioner must be told
what circumstances had changed or why there was now a significant likelihood of removal
Case 3:25-cv-03412-JLS-JLB Document 15 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 6

5
25-CV-3412 JLS (JLB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in order to meaningfully respond to the reasons and submit evidence in opposition.” Sarail
A. v. Bondi, ---- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2025 WL 2533673, at *10 (D. Minn. 2025).
“Government agencies are required to follow their own regulations.” 	Hoac v.
Becerra, No. 25-cv-1740-DC-JDP, 2025 WL 1993771, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 16, 2025)
(citing United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 US. 260, 268 (1954)) (finding a
likelihood of success where petitioner was not provided an informal interview). “[W]hen
ICE fails to follow its own regulations in revoking release, the detention is unlawful, and
the petitioner’s release must be ordered.” 	Truong v. Noem, No. 25-cv-2597-JES-MMP,
2025 WL 2988357, at *6 (S.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2025) (collecting cases). The Court finds that,
in violation of ICE’s regulations, the revocation of his supervised release without notice or
an informed interview justifies GRANTING the Petition. 	See, e.g., Hoac, 2025 WL
1993771, at *4 (granting a TRO where ICE failed to follow § 241.13(i)(3) procedures);
Phakeokoth v. Noem, No. 25-cv-2817 RBM (SBC), 2025 WL 3124341, at *6 (S.D. Cal.
Nov. 7, 2025) (same); Nouri, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 171809, at *11 (same); Tran, 2025
WL 3005347, at *4 (granting a habeas petition on the same grounds); Truong, 2025 WL
2988357, at *6 (same); Nguyen v. Noem, No. 25-cv-2792 LL (VET), 2025 WL 3101979,
at *3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2025) (same).
Additionally, even if the procedural requirements were met, the Court is not
persuaded that Respondents have shown a change in circumstances such that there is now
a significant likelihood Petitioner will be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.
First, Petitioner has been subject to a final order of removal since January 2024, and in the
last two years, there has been no progress on securing his removal. Traverse at 6.
Second, Respondents failed to secure travel documents, or alleged potential for
travel documents, for Petitioner before his re-detention. 	Petitioner was released in 2024
because his removal was not reasonably foreseeable, id., and Respondents present no
evidence that this has changed. 	In fact, Petitioner was found to have a credible fear of
return to Gambia in his September 15, 2025, interview with an asylum officer and his case
Case 3:25-cv-03412-JLS-JLB Document 15 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 6

6
25-CV-3412 JLS (JLB)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
has since been referred to the Immigration Court for withholding-only proceedings. Ret.
at 2.
Therefore, because Respondents have failed to follow their own regulations in re-
detaining Petitioner and have failed to demonstrate that his removal is reasonably
foreseeable, the Court GRANTS the Petition.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s First Amended Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 5), and ORDERS Respondents to immediately release
Petitioner from custody subject to the conditions of his preexisting Order of Supervision.
The Court ORDERS that Respondents cannot re-detain Petitioner without following the
procedures set out in 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i) and other implementing regulations. The Parties
are ORDERED to file a Joint Status Report by January 12, 2026, confirming that Petitioner
has been released. The Clerk of Court SHALL CLOSE the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 6, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-03412-JLS-JLB Document 15 Filed 01/06/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 6