Diallo v. LyonsDiallo v. Lyons
NINA R. MORRISON, United States District Judge:
Petitioner Mamadou Sanoussy Diallo — a 26-year-old Guinean national who came to the United States seeking political asylum in 2023 — filed the instant Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on June 4, 2026. ECF No. 1. At the time the Petition was filed, Diallo had been incarcerated at the Metropolitan Detention Center (“MDC”) for nearly six weeks.
On June 22, 2026, the Court granted Petitioner’s motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and directed that Respondents immediately release Diallo from custody. Diallo v. Lyons, No. 26-CV-3364, 2026 WL 1791494 (E.D.N.Y. June 22, 2026). The Court also issued an Order to Show Cause (“OTSC”), directing Respondents to explain “(1) why the Court should not issue a preliminary injunction
Respondents submitted a letter in response on July 7, 2026, stating that they “no longer seek to contest the relief sought in the writ and agree not to re-detain Petitioner absent compliance with the appropriate regulatory provisions, unless they obtain prior leave of this Court to do so.” ECF No. 16.
In light of the record, the applicable law, and Respondents’ representation that they no longer seek to contest the relief sought in the writ, the Petition is granted. In so doing, the Court adheres to the preliminary findings contained in its June 22, 2026 opinion and order, namely that: (1) the Court has jurisdiction over the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus because it does not amount to a challenge to a final order of removal, see Diallo, 2026 WL 1791494, at *4–6; (2) that Respondents lacked the statutory authority to arrest Petitioner in April 2026, see id. at *8–10; and (3) Petitioner’s arrest — which was done without the required notice or statutory basis — violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process, see id. at *10–11. The Court further concludes that granting the writ (which Respondents no longer contest) is an appropriate remedy for the procedural due process deprivations Petitioner experienced.
Accordingly, it is hereby:
ORDERED that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents are ENJOINED from re-detaining Petitioner absent compliance with the appropriate regulatory provisions, unless they obtain prior authorization of this Court to do so.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 21, 2026
Brooklyn, New York
/s/ Nina R. Morrison
Nina R. Morrison
United States District Judge