Flores Segura v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
2:19-cv-00335
| E.D. Wis. | Mar 25, 2021Background
- Petitioner Jesus Flores Segura pleaded guilty in ~2000 to a drug-related offense (maintaining a drug‑trafficking place) and completed his sentence around March 2001 without being taken into ICE custody.
- On January 14, 2019, ICE apprehended Segura and the government and an immigration judge denied bond citing 8 U.S.C. §1226(c) (mandatory detention based on certain convictions).
- Segura filed a §2241 habeas petition (Mar. 6, 2019) arguing §1226(c) did not apply because ICE waited ~18 years to arrest him after his release, so §1226(a) (discretionary detention/bond) should govern.
- The petition was screened under the Rules Governing §2254 Cases as applied locally; the court did not resolve the merits at screening stage.
- Court staff learned ICE removed Segura to Mexico on June 14, 2019; an ICE inmate‑locator search returned no result.
- Because petitioner appears removed and no longer in U.S. custody, the court concluded there is no Article III “case or controversy” and dismissed the petition without prejudice, allowing re‑notification if custody status is incorrect.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1226(c) mandatory detention applies despite an 18‑year gap between release and ICE custody | Segura: “when” in §1226(c) limits mandatory custody to aliens taken into custody upon release; long delay makes §1226(a) govern, allowing bond | Respondents: §1226(c) covers aliens with qualifying convictions regardless of elapsed time (mandatory detention) | Court did not reach the merits; case dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because petitioner appears removed |
| Whether the court has subject‑matter jurisdiction (Article III case or controversy) after petitioner’s removal | Segura: (if still in custody) claims live controversy | Respondents: removal moots habeas claim | Held: No live case or controversy shown; petition dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Hosh v. Lucero, 680 F.3d 375 (4th Cir. 2012) (appellate decision addressing interplay of §1226(a) and §1226(c))
- Khodr v. Adduci, 697 F. Supp. 2d 774 (E.D. Mich. 2010) (district court evaluating §1226(c) after long delay)
- Louisaire v. Muller, 758 F. Supp. 2d 229 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (district court construing mandatory detention timing)
- Burns v. Cicchi, 702 F. Supp. 2d 281 (D.N.J. 2010) (district decision on §1226(c) applicability)
- Scarlett v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec., 632 F. Supp. 2d 214 (W.D.N.Y. 2009) (district court rejecting mandatory detention where significant time elapsed)