Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Zakariya Abdikarim,
Petitioner,
v.
Jesse Pugh, in his official capacity as Warden
of Moose Lake Detention Facility; Todd
Lyons, in his official capacity as Field Office
Director of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Enforcement and Removal
Operations Washington Field Office; Pam
Bondi, in her official capacity as Attorney
General of the United States; Markwayne
Mullin, Secretary of Homeland Security; and
Sarah Rykken, A/W Operations,
Respondents.
Zakariya Abdiwahab Abdikarim,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement;
Markwayne Mullin; and Pam Bondi,
Respondents.
Case No. 26-cv-1890 (JRT/LIB)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Case No. 26-cv-2021 (JRT/LIB)
Pursuant to a general assignment made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636, this matter
comes 	before 	the 	undersigned 	United 	States 	Magistrate 	Judge 	upon 	Petitioner 	Zakariya
Abdiwahab Abdikarim’s Petitions for a writ of habeas corpus.
Petitioner Zakariya Abdikarim is currently serving a lengthy sentence in state prison after
being convicted on drug charges, see State v. Abdikarim, No. 56-CR-24-395 (Minn. Dist. Ct.), and
on a charge of fleeing a peace officer in a motor vehicle, State v. Abdikarim, No. 14-CR-24-982
CASE 0:26-cv-01890-JRT-LIB Doc. 5 Filed 04/07/26 Page 1 of 5

2
(Minn. Dist. Ct.). Petitioner is also subject to a final order of removal from the United States. The
federal government has notified the State of Minnesota that it intends to detain Petitioner after his
state sentence of imprisonment has been completed.
In two separate petitions for a writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner argues that any detention
that might someday be imposed as a result of the final order of removal would be unlawful, because
his removal from the United States is not reasonably likely to be carried out.1 Those habeas
petitions are now before the Court on preliminary review pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules
Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.2 As a result of that review,
this Court recommends that both habeas petitions be denied and these matters dismissed.
The habeas petition filed by Petitioner in the first-filed action (26-cv-1890) is a document
prepared on behalf of another habeas petitioner in an unrelated case; Petitioner has crossed out the
name of the other petitioner and written his own throughout the petition and, in a similar manner,
altered a small number of the details in that petition by hand. The habeas petition was originally
filed by a person who had been subject to a final order of removal and who had remained in the
custody of the federal government for more than six months after the order of removal had become
administratively final. In that petition, the original petitioner argued that his removal from the
United States was not reasonably foreseeable and that, pursuant to Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S.
1 Petitioner has also filed a third habeas corpus petition challenging the effect of the federal government’s detainer
request as it relates to the amount of time that Petitioner will remain in state prison. See Abdikarim v. Schnell, No. 26-
cv-2052 (JWB/ECW). The habeas petitions now before the Court, however, relate only to the lawfulness of future
detention of Petitioner by the federal government based on the final order of removal. The lawfulness and the duration
of Petitioner’s ongoing term of imprisonment, as imposed and carried out by the State of Minnesota, is not at issue in
the present cases and can be fully litigated in the remaining habeas proceeding that Petitioner has filed.
2 Petitioner is “a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a), but the custody
that he challenges in these actions is not his ongoing custody pursuant to the state court judgment, but future custody
unrelated to that judgment. Regardless of whether the habeas petitions in this matter are brought under § 2254, the
petitions may be reviewed pursuant to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. See Rule 1(b).
CASE 0:26-cv-01890-JRT-LIB Doc. 5 Filed 04/07/26 Page 2 of 5

3
678 (2001), he should be released until such time that his removal could be effectuated. See
generally Petition [Docket No. 1], Case No. 26-cv-1890.
The factual circumstances described in the first habeas petition do not bear any
resemblance to the factual circumstances in which Petitioner now finds himself. Petitioner does
not remain in the custody of the federal government. Petitioner is in custody for having violated
the laws of the State of Minnesota, and his custody is being effected through facially lawful state-
court judgments that are not in dispute. The first habeas petition—which, again, was not prepared
for Petitioner or by Petitioner on his own behalf—simply does not relate to anything relevant to
Petitioner’s current situation.
Petitioner’s second habeas petition—which, unlike the first habeas petition, was prepared
by Petitioner himself—is more comprehensible. Petitioner alleges that he was made subject to a
final order of removal in 2017, but that the order could not be carried out and that he has been
granted withholding of removal. Following his conviction in state court, U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement “put a detainer on” Petitioner, (Petition at [Docket No. 1] at 5, Case No. 26-
cv-2021), asking that the federal government be notified of Petitioner’s eventual release from state
custody so that Petitioner could be taken immediately thereafter into federal custody. Petitioner
does not believe that any return to federal custody would be lawful, as it remains the case that his
removal cannot be effectuated, and he asks that the Court issue a writ of habeas corpus declaring
that future immigration detention unlawful.
This Court concludes that the claims raised by Petitioner in these matters are, at best,
premature. In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court concluded that “if removal is not reasonably
foreseeable, the court should hold continued detention unreasonable and no longer authorized by
statute.” 	Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 699-700. At present, Petitioner is scheduled to spend the next
CASE 0:26-cv-01890-JRT-LIB Doc. 5 Filed 04/07/26 Page 3 of 5

4
several years in state prison serving a term of imprisonment for having violated the laws of the
State of Minnesota. The lawfulness of Petitioner’s detention after that term of imprisonment has
concluded will depend upon whether, at that time, Petitioner’s removal from the United States has
become reasonably foreseeable. Neither Petitioner, nor the Court, nor anyone else has any way of
knowing whether, years from now, Petitioner’s removal might become reasonably foreseeable.
Accordingly, neither Petitioner, nor the Court, nor anyone else has any way of knowing whether
the future detention of Petitioner by immigration authorities might be lawful at the time that the
detention is effected. The Court concludes that the two habeas petitions filed in this matter should
be denied without prejudice on that basis.
Finally, in the first proceeding, Petitioner filed—at the same time that he filed his habeas
petition—a “motion to amend habeas corpus” and a request to “dismiss the previous habeas
corpus.” See Docket No. 3 at 1, Case No. 26-cv-1890 (JRT/LIB). It is not entirely clear to what
“previous habeas matter” Petitioner might have been referring; no habeas proceeding was then
pending before the Court on the date that he filed his first habeas petition. To the extent that
Petitioner asks to amend his habeas petition, it is recommended that the motion be denied, both
because Petitioner has already filed a second habeas petition (which may have been his attempt to
amend the initial habeas petition), and because no potential further amendment to the habeas
petition could plausibly result in Petitioner being afforded the habeas relief that he seeks in these
proceedings. It is simply too early for Petitioner to challenge the lawfulness of immigration-related
detention that may be effected several years from now, the legality of which depends upon
circumstances outside the control and the knowledge of both Petitioner and the government. No
amendment to the pleading could fix that problem.
CASE 0:26-cv-01890-JRT-LIB Doc. 5 Filed 04/07/26 Page 4 of 5

5
Therefore, 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 filed in
Case No. 26-cv-1890 (JRT/LIB) be DENIED without prejudice.
2. 	Petitioner’s motion to amend and dismiss, [Docket No. 3], in Case No. 26-cv-1890
(JRT/LIB) be DENIED.
3. 	Abdikarim’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in Case No. 26-cv-2021
(JRT/LIB) be DENIED without prejudice.
Dated: April 7, 2026 	s/Leo I. Brisbois
Hon. Leo I. Brisbois
United States Magistrate Judge
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-01890-JRT-LIB Doc. 5 Filed 04/07/26 Page 5 of 5