Bassim Malih v. Scott Ladwig, New Orleans Field Office Director of Immigration...

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE WESTERN DIVISION BASSIM MALIH, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) SCOTT LADWIG, New Orleans Field Office ) No. 2:26-cv-2150-SHL-cgc Director of Immigration and Customs ) Enforcement; U.S. Department of Homeland ) Security, Enforcement and Removal ) Operations; U.S. Immigration and Customs ) Enforcement, ) Respondents. ) ORDER REQUIRING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM PETITIONER AND ORDERING SERVICE

On February 13, 2026, Petitioner Bassim Malih filed the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his continued detention in the West Tennessee Detention Facility as an “arriving alien” without a bond hearing. (ECF No. 1-3 at PageID 11.)

However, Malih failed to provide sufficient facts in the Petition.

Petitioner’s counsel has recently submitted a rash of petitions containing few facts. See, e.g., Cruz-Ruiz v. Harper, No. 26-cv-02092 (W.D. Tenn. filed Feb. 3, 2026). These bare petitions have required the Court repeatedly to request supplementation. The Court recognizes that the volume of immigration habeas cases has lately been prodigious. But a habeas petition “must: (1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner; [and] (2) state the facts supporting each ground[.]” Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (emphasis added); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain: . . . a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” (emphasis added)). Note that the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases—in addition to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to the extent they are not inconsistent with the habeas statute—apply equally to § 2241 habeas petitions such as this. Williams v. Holloway, No. 14-cv-02652, 2016 WL 1058017, at *4 n.2 (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 14. 2016). Counsel is cautioned to compose future petitions so that the Court may immediately ascertain the plausibility of the request for relief. Such efficient pleading conserves party and judicial resources and avoids needless delay.

Nevertheless, upon review of the Petition, it is ORDERED as follows: (1) Malih shall SUPPLEMENT the Petition within five days of the entry of this Order, providing a factual basis affirmatively showing why he should not be considered an “arriving alien” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. He shall, also within five days of this Order, serve one copy each of (1) the Petition (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, 1-2, 1-3), (2) his supplemental facts, and (3) this Order (ECF No. 5) on each Respondent, and ensure that copies are delivered to the United States Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee at the following address: Stuart Canale, Assistant United States Attorney United States Attorney’s Office North Main Street Suite 800 Memphis, TN 38103 Additionally, Malih shall serve the documents listed above on the United States Attorney for the Western District of Tennessee electronically at the following email address: [email protected]. Failure to fully comply with these service requirements may justify dismissal of the Petition. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (“If the plaintiff fails to . . . comply with these rules or a court order, a defendant may move to dismiss the action or any claim against it.” (emphasis added)). (2) Within five days after Malih fully complies with the above service requirements, Respondents shall respond to the petition for writ of habeas corpus in writing. (3) Malih may file a reply within two days after Respondents’ responsive filing. (4) Respondents shall not transfer Petitioner Malih out of the West Tennessee Detention Facility during the pendency of the Petition.

IT IS SO ORDERED, this 13th day of February, 2026. s/ Sheryl H. Lipman SHERYL H. LIPMAN CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE