James v. United States Department of Justice, 1:17-cv-21052

Petitioner Lacroix Emmanuel James, detained by ICE at Krome Service Processing Center, filed a pro se motion (construed as a §2241 habeas petition) seeking a stay of deportation and remand to an immigration judge.
At filing (docketed March 21, 2017), James had been in ICE custody for 11 days awaiting removal to Haiti pursuant to a 2012 removal order.
James contended he is eligible for suspension of deportation and asked the district court to stop his removal and remand his case.
The Magistrate Judge reviewed subject-matter jurisdiction and applicability of habeas review after the REAL ID Act narrowed district-court review of removal orders.
The Magistrate concluded the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant a stay of removal (such relief must be sought in the appropriate court of appeals) and that a §2241 challenge to post-removal-order detention was premature because James had not been detained for the Zadvydas six-month presumptive period.
Recommendation: dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, or alternatively dismiss as premature under §2241, and close the case; 14 days allowed for objections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court has jurisdiction to grant a stay of removal	James: district court can issue stay and remand for suspension of deportation	Respondents: jurisdiction to review removal orders lies with the court of appeals under REAL ID Act	Court: No jurisdiction; stay of removal must be sought in court of appeals
Whether §2241 habeas review of detention is proper while detention < 6 months	James: requests habeas relief to prevent imminent removal	Respondents: detention is within statutory removal/90-day period and not yet presumptively unreasonable	Court: Dismiss §2241 as premature; James detained only 11 days, below Zadvydas six-month threshold
Whether Zadvydas standard for prolonged post-removal detention is met	James: implies prolonged detention and lack of removal likelihood	Respondents: government actively effecting removal within statutory period	Court: Zadvydas not triggered because detention has not exceeded presumptive six months
Proper remedy and procedural posture	James: seeks remand and temporary stop to deportation	Respondents: relief must proceed through appellate petition for review or later habeas if detention becomes prolonged	Court: Recommend dismissal for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, dismissal without prejudice as premature under §2241

Kakkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (jurisdiction of federal courts is limited and party asserting jurisdiction bears burden)
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (indefinite detention after final removal order raises due process concerns; six months is presumptively reasonable)
Akinwale v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050 (11th Cir.) (applying Zadvydas; requires detention > six months plus evidence showing no significant likelihood of removal)
Williams v. McNeil, 557 F.3d 1287 (11th Cir.) (prison mailbox rule: pro se prisoner's filing deemed filed when delivered to prison authorities)