UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

SAMI KALEVA KIVINEN CASE NO. 6:20-CV-01091 SEC P

VERSUS JUDGE ROBERT R. SUMMERHAYS

WILLIAM BARR, ET AL MAGISTRATE JUDGE WHITEHURST

MEMORANDUM ORDER Pro se plaintiff petitioner Sami Kaleva Kivinen, proceeding in forma pauperis, filed the instant petition for writ of habeas corpus, pursuant to

, on September 4, 2020. Petitioner is an immigration detainee in the custody of the Department of Homeland Security / U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“DHS/ICE”). Petitioner alleges that his continued detention is unconstitutional under Zadvydas v. Davis,

(2001) and requests immediate release from detention. This matter has been referred to the undersigned for review, report, and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of

and the standing orders of the Court. Factual Background Petitioner was born in Finland in 1974 and came to the United States in 1995. Doc. 1, p. 3. He was taken into ICE custody on January 3, 2019, and received a final order of removal on December 5, 2019.

. Petitioner alleges that he has remained in ICE custody beyond the presumptively reasonable 6-month post- removal order period set forth in Zadvydas v. Davis,

(2001). In order to determine what action should be taken with respect to this petition, THE CLERK IS DIRECTED to serve a summons, a copy of the petition

(rec. doc. 1), and a copy of this Order, by certified mail, on the United States through the United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, the United States Attorney General, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (DHS/ICE), the

Director of ICE, and the warden of the Lasalle ICE Processing Center. IT IS ORDERED that Respondents file an answer to the petition within sixty (60) days following the date of service. In the answer, Respondents shall provide the Court with summary judgment evidence indicating whether there is a significant

likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future or whether Petitioner’s detention is otherwise lawful. This evidence shall include information regarding the length of time that he has been in post-removal-order custody, the date

on which her removal order became final, any administrative decisions relating to Petitioner’s request for bond, and all documents relevant to the efforts made by the immigration officials to obtain travel documents for Petitioner. Respondents shall also file a memorandum of law briefing the issues raised in

the answer and citing applicable statutory and case law. The memorandum should also address whether there is a significant likelihood of removing Petitioner from the United States in the reasonably foreseeable future. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner will be given thirty (30) days following the filing of Respondents’ answer to produce contradictory summary judgment evidence! on the issue of the lawfulness of his detention. All documentary exhibits MUST BE APPROPRIATELY BOUND AND THE PAGES MUST BE NUMBERED. An index describing each item attached to the response and showing each item’s page number shall also be attached. FINALLY, IT IS ORDERED that, as a condition to their acceptance by the Clerk, all future filings by Petitioner and Respondents shall include a certificate stating that a copy thereof has been mailed to all other parties. After the record is complete and all delays have run, the Court will determine if genuine issues of material fact exist, which preclude summary judgment and necessitate an evidentiary hearing. If no hearing is necessary, a Report and Recommendation will be issued without further notice. THUS DONE in Chambers on this 30" day of October, 2020.

CAROL B. WHITEHURST UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

‘Summary judgment evidence consists of affidavits or unsworn declarations made in accordance with

, deposition testimony, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and sworn or certified copies of all papers referred to. All affidavits or unsworn declarations must comply with Rule 56(e). They shall be made on personal knowledge and set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.