Meda v. LaSalle Detention Facility
1:17-cv-00546
W.D. La.Aug 7, 2017Background
- Petitioner Vishnu Pradeep Meda is an ICE immigration detainee housed at LaSalle Detention Center; he filed a pro se § 2241 habeas petition challenging his detention.
- Meda was convicted of five counts of health-care fraud and sentenced to concurrent 46-month terms; his conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal (Sixth Circuit) and certiorari was denied.
- DHS issued a notice of intent to issue a final administrative removal order while Meda’s criminal appeal was pending; Meda contends issuance during appeal was improper because his conviction was not yet final.
- Meda asserts three additional bases for relief: (1) detention violates Zadvydas v. Davis; (2) there was no probable-cause determination for his immigration detention; and (3) detention is excessive under the Eighth Amendment.
- The magistrate judge did not reach the merits; instead the court ordered Meda to amend his petition to clarify whether he is asserting a Zadvydas claim and to supply specified documents and factual detail regarding removal proceedings and likelihood of removal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of issuing notice of intent to remove while criminal appeal pending (finality/deportable status) | Meda: conviction not final during appeal, so DHS improperly initiated removal | DHS: (implicit) removal proceedings may proceed after conviction; not adjudicated here | Court did not decide on merits; directed Meda to amend and clarify claims/documentation |
| Zadvydas claim (post-removal-order detention and six-month presumption) | Meda cites Zadvydas to challenge constitutionality of detention | DHS: Meda did not allege detention beyond Zadvydas’ six-month presumption or lack of foreseeable removal | Court ordered Meda to state whether he presses a Zadvydas claim and to provide removal order, BIA filings, custody-review notices, and facts showing lack of likelihood of removal |
| Probable-cause determination for immigration detention | Meda: no probable-cause finding made to justify detention | DHS: not addressed in detail in the order | Court did not resolve; treated as claim to be preserved in amended petition |
| Eighth Amendment excessive-detention claim | Meda: detention is excessive/cruel and unusual | DHS: not developed in the order | Court did not resolve; directed Meda to amend if he intends to pursue this claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) (post-removal detention must be limited to a period reasonably necessary to effectuate removal; six months is a presumptively reasonable period)
- Andrade v. Gonzales, 459 F.3d 538 (5th Cir.) (alien bears initial burden to show no significant likelihood of removal)
- Agyei–Kodie v. Holder, [citation="418 F. App'x 317"] (5th Cir. 2011) (discussing burden and factual showing for Zadvydas-type claims)
- United States v. Meda, 812 F.3d 502 (6th Cir.) (affirming Meda’s criminal conviction and sentence)