Southern District of Florida • 1:26-cv-23942

#1

Jun 04, 2026

APPLICATION/PETITION (Complaint) for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2241 . Filing fee $ 5.00 receipt number AFLSDC-19620733, filed by Justo Alvarez Izquierdo. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit)Case restricted pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. (Flanagan, Patricia) (Entered: 06/04/2026)

#2

Jun 04, 2026

Clerks Notice of Judge Assignment to Judge Darrin P. Gayles. (kpe) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

#3

Jun 05, 2026

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 6/5/2026. See attached document for full details. (hs01) (Entered: 06/05/2026)

Jun 05, 2026

Clerk's Notice of Judge Assignment and Optional Consent

#4

Jun 07, 2026

Notice of Attorney Appearance

#5

Jun 15, 2026

Response to Order to Show Cause

#6

Jun 19, 2026

Response/Reply (Other)

#7

Jul 01, 2026

Emergency Motion with Certification of Emergency

#8

Jul 01, 2026

PAPERLESS ORDER. On or before 5:00 p.m. on July 10, 2026, Respondents shall file a response to 7 Petitioner's Emergency Motion for Expedited Review of Petitioner's Habeas Corpus Petition Due to Petitioner's Rapid Health Deterioration and Lack of Proper Medical Care by Respondents. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 7/1/2026. (hs01) (Entered: 07/01/2026)

Jul 01, 2026

- Order (PAPERLESS or pdf attached)

#9

Jul 08, 2026

Response in Opposition to Motion

#10

Jul 08, 2026

Response in Opposition to Motion

#11

Jul 10, 2026

PAPERLESS ORDER granting in part and denying in part 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") and denying 7 Emergency Motion For Expedited Review of Petitioner's Habeas Corpus Petition Due to Petitioner's Rapid Health Deterioration and Lack of Proper Medical Care by Respondents ("Emergency Motion"). In his Petition, Petitioner argues that Respondents (1) unlawfully revoked his Order of Supervision ("OSUP") and (2) have detained him beyond the removal period authorized by statute. In his Emergency Motion, Respondent argues that he is receiving inadequate medical care at the Miami Federal Detention Center ("FDC") and seeks an order directing Respondents to release him from detention. Importantly, Petitioner does not challenge the validity of his final removal order which was issued in 1997 following one of Petitioner's criminal convictions.First, the Court does not have jurisdiction over Respondents' decision to revoke Petitioner's OSUP to enforce a removal order. See Barrios v. Ripa, No. 25-cv-22644, 2025 WL 2280485, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2025). It does, however, have jurisdiction to address Petitioner's claim that Respondents failed to comply with their own procedures in revoking the OSUP. See Gonzalez v. Reno, 212 F.3d 1338, 1349 (11th Cir. 2000). There is a factual dispute in the record as to whether Respondents afforded Petitioner with an informal interview as required by their own procedures. Compare [ECF Nos. 5-3 para. 22 and 5-8 at 2] with [ECF No. 6 at 6]. Accordingly, within seven (7) days of this Order, Respondents shall provide Petitioner with an informal interview regarding the revocation of his OSUP. The Court notes that even if Respondents did fail to follow their own procedures when first revoking Petitioner's OSUP, Petitioner's release from detention, or a continued stay of removal after the informal interview, is not appropriate here.With respect to Petitioner's claim that the length of his detention is unreasonable, the Court disagrees. Petitioner's detention, as a non-citizen who has been ordered removed, is mandatory under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)(A). See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 683 (2001). And "to state a claim under Zadvydas, [Petitioner] not only must show post-removal order detention in excess of six months but also must provide evidence of a good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future." Akinwale v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050, 1052 (11th Cir. 2002) (affirming the district court's dismissal of petition for writ of habeas corpus). Here, ICE took Petitioner into custody on May 8, 2026. [ECF No. 5-7]. Though Petitioner argues that his detention should be counted in the aggregate based on his prior detentions, this Court has found that counting "detentions in the aggregate" raises constitutional concerns. Barrios, 2025 WL 2280485, at * 8 (declining to count the petitioner's prior and current detention periods for purposes of Zadvydas because "if the Court counted detentions in the aggregate, any subsequent period of detention, even one day, would raise constitutional concerns. And adjudicating the constitutionality of every re-detention would obstruct an area that is in the discretion of the Attorney General--effectuating removals."). Thus, Petitioner's challenge to the length of his post-final order detention is premature because his detention has not exceeded the presumptively reasonable six-month period.Finally, Petitioner's claims of inadequate medical care and deplorable conditions at Miami FDC are outside the scope of habeas relief. See Vaz v. Skinner, 634 F. App'x 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2015) ("Claims challenging the fact or duration of a sentence fall within the core of habeas corpus, while claims challenging the conditions of confinement fall outside of habeas corpus law.") (internal quotation omitted). And "release from imprisonment is not an available remedy for a conditions-of-confinement claim." Id. If Plaintiff seeks to raise claim about the conditions of his confinement, he must file a complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. This case is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Darrin P. Gayles on 7/10/2026. (hs01) (Entered: 07/10/2026)

Jul 10, 2026

Administrative Order