Ahmad Fareez Thabateh v. Kevin Raycraft, et al.

District Court, E.D. Michigan

Ahmad Fareez Thabateh v. Kevin Raycraft, et al.

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

AHMAD FAREEZ THABATEH,

Petitioner, Case No. 25-cv-14018 v. Honorable Robert J. White KEVIN RAYCRAFT, et al.,

Respondents.

ORDER TO AMEND THE PETITION AND SERVE THE PROPER RESPONDENT

Petitioner Ahmad Fareez Thabateh filed for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. § 2241

. (ECF No. 1, PageID.4). Thabateh alleges that, following a final order to remove him from the United States, Respondents have detained him indefinitely for over six months in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), and that his continued detention violates his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right to Due Process. (ECF No. 1, PageID.3-4, 6-13). Thabateh is currently detained at the St. Clair County Jail in Port Huron, Michigan. (ECF No. 1, PageID.2, 4-6). St. Clair County is within the Eastern District of Michigan. See

28 U.S.C. § 102

(a)(1). A writ of habeas corpus may only be issued “to the person having custody of the person detained.”

28 U.S.C. § 2243

. Except in extraordinary circumstances, the “default rule” for habeas challenges to present physical confinement “is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held, not

the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla,

542 U.S. 426, 435

(2004) (emphasis added); see also

id. at 439

(“In challenges to present physical confinement, we reaffirm that the immediate custodian, not a

supervisory official who exercises legal control, is the proper respondent.”). Here, the proper respondent is therefore the warden of St. Clair County Jail, and not any of the Respondents that Thabateh names in his petition.1 Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Thabateh must amend the petition to name the proper respondent, the warden of the St. Clair County Jail, and serve that respondent within 14 days from the entry of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that failure to name and serve the proper respondent within 14 days of the Court’s order will result in the Court’s dismissal of the petition.

Dated: December 19, 2025 s/Robert J. White Robert J. White United States District Judge

1 See Aguilar v. Dunbar, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, No. 25-cv-12831,

2025 WL 3281540

, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 13, 2025) (finding that the only proper respondent was the warden of the facility where petitioner was detained); see also Badjie v. Raycraft, No. 25-cv-13404,

2025 WL 3530072

, at *2 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 9, 2025) (same).

Reference

Status
Unknown