Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nelson Alredo Morey-Gomez, a citizen of Cuba, filed an amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Southern District of California. He alleged that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a division of the Department of Homeland Security, has held him at the Otay Mesa Detention Facility since June 24, 2026. According to the petition as the court described it, he entered the United States in 2021, was issued a final order of removal on January 27, 2024, and has not been removed since. He asked to be released because of prolonged detention under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001).
Respondents, the warden of the detention center and other officials, filed a return to the amended petition. They stated that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future and acknowledged that the proper remedy is release. Petitioner did not file a traverse, so his account of his history rests on the petition and the return rather than on contested factual findings. Two other requests were also pending: a motion to appoint counsel (ECF No. 2) and a motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 3).
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the amended petition and ordered Respondents to release Petitioner from custody immediately. The stated reason was narrow. Respondents did not oppose release and had themselves said that removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, so the court granted the writ. The order contains no independent analysis of how long the detention has lasted, of prospects for removal to Cuba, or of how Zadvydas applies to these facts. It does not make findings beyond accepting the government's position.
The court also ordered the parties to file a joint status report by November 9, 2026, confirming that Petitioner has been released. It denied the motion to appoint counsel and the motion for a temporary restraining order as moot, and it directed the Clerk of Court to close the file because the order concludes the litigation.
Several matters are left open. The order does not say whether release carries any conditions, such as supervision. It does not address whether the government may later seek removal if circumstances change, and it decides nothing about Petitioner's immigration status beyond directing his release from custody. The only follow-up the court required is the status report confirming release.
Key Takeaways
- Respondents' written concession that removal was not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future was the basis for granting the writ, and the court did not otherwise analyze Zadvydas.
- The release order is immediate, and compliance is to be confirmed through a joint status report due November 9, 2026.
- The motions for appointment of counsel and a temporary restraining order were denied as moot rather than on their merits.
- The facts about Petitioner's entry, removal order and detention come from his petition, which the court recited without resolving any dispute, because he filed no traverse and Respondents did not contest release.
- The order closes the file, is unreported, and carries limited precedential weight.
Why It Matters
This order shows how a Zadvydas-based habeas petition can end quickly when the government concedes that removal is unlikely. The court did not decide whether detention had become unreasonable. It treated the lack of opposition as sufficient, granted the writ, and added a short reporting requirement to verify release. For detainees with long-final removal orders and no realistic prospect of removal, the order illustrates that a government concession can produce prompt relief and make related motions unnecessary.
Readers should not treat the order as a ruling on how long detention may last under Zadvydas, or on removal to Cuba generally. It is a short district-court order in a single case. It is unpublished and is not precedent for other courts. Its practical value is as an example of the relief and timing that follow when respondents decline to defend continued detention.