Corpus: 543,223 opinions ·
3,177 judges ·
newest 2026-06-23 · expanding
Coverage ↗
Opinion
govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-1_26-cv-21974-0
Page 1 of 14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 26-21974-CV-WILLIAMS
JOSE MARIO GARCIA VALDES,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT,
Respondent.
/
ORDER
THIS MATTER is before the Court following the April 2, 2026, Show Cause
Hearing (“Show Cause Hearing”). (DE 12). On March 27, 2026, the Court ordered U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“Respondent” or “ICE”) to show cause why
Petitioner Jose Mario Garcia Valdes (“ Petitioner”) should not be released and further
ordered that Petitioner should not be remove d or transferred “from the Facility without
prior order from the Court permitting them to do so.” (DE 8 at 2). In response, Respondent
indicated that Petitioner had been removed from the United States , “and he is therefore
no longer in Respondent’s custody.” (DE 9 ¶ 2). As detailed below, the Court held a status
conference on April 1, 2026, and a Show Cause Hearing on April 2, 2026. (DE 10; DE
12). This Order follows.
I. BACKGROUND
The relevant facts are set forth below:
A. Petitioner’s Detention History.
• On December 28, 1995, Petitioner entered the United States. (DE 9- 1 at
Case 1:26-cv-21974-KMW Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 1 of 14
Page 2 of 14
1). At some point, Petitioner was taken into immigration custody and
subsequently released. (Id.) As a condition of his release, Petitioner
reported regularly to the Miramar ICE office. (DE 1 at 6).
• On November 20, 2025, at 1100 EST , Petitioner was booked into Krome
North Service Processing Center (“ Krome”)1, and then taken to Florida
Kendall Hospital. On that same date, at 1200 EST, Petitioner was booked
out of Florida Kendall Hospital and booked into Krome at 1525 EST. (Id.)
• On December 9, 2025, at 1600 EST, Petitioner was booked out of Krome
and then rebooked into Krome at 1653 EST. (Id.)
• On December 16, 2025, at 1040 EST, Petitioner was booked out of Krome
and booked into West Kendall Baptist Hospital at 1120 EST. (Id.) On that
same date, Petitioner was booked out of West Kendall Baptist Hospital at
1412 EST and booked back into Krome at 1512 EST. (Id.)
• On February 7, 2026, at 2038 EST , Petitioner was booked out of Krome.
On that same date, at 2039 hours CST2, Petitioner was booked into the Port
Isabel Special Processing Center (“ Port Isabel ”), a processing center
located 22 hours away in Texas.3
1 Krome is located in Miami, Florida. See U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
https://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-facilities/krome-north-service-processing-center
(last visited April 16, 2026).
2 Central Standard Time (CST) is one hour behind Eastern Standard Time (EST).
3 Port Isabel is located in Los Fresnos, Texas. See U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, https://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-facilities/port-isabel-service-
processing-center (last visited April 16, 2026).
Case 1:26-cv-21974-KMW Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 2 of 14
Page 3 of 14
• On February 9, 2026, at 1800 CST , Petitioner was booked out of Port
Isabel. (Id.)
• On February 9, 2026, at 1832 CST, Petitioner was booked into the El Valle
Detention Facility (“El Valle”).4 (Id.)
• On February 21, 2026, at 0000 CST, Petitioner was booked out of El Valle
and transferred to the Florida Soft Sided Facility South (“FSS”)5 where he
was booked into the facility at 0045 EST. (Id.)
• On March 24, 2026, at 1530 EST , Petitioner was booked out of FSS in
Florida and, at 1532 CST, booked into the Pines Prairie ICE Processing
Center (“Pines”)6, a processing center located 15 hours away in Louisiana.
(Id.)
• On March 25, 2026, at 1111 CST, Petitioner was booked out of Pines. (Id.)
A few hours later, at 1934 CST, Petitioner was booked into Port Isabel.
• On March 27, 2026, at 07567 CST, Petitioner was booked out of Port Isabel
and “Removed.” (Id.)
4 El Valle is located in Raymondville, Texas. See U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, https://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-facilities/el-valle-detention-facility
(last visited April 16, 2026).
5 FSS is located in Ochopee, Florida. See U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT,
https://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-facilities/florida-soft-sided-facility-south (last visited
April 16, 2026).
6 Pines is located in Pine Prairie, Louisiana. See U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, https://www.ice.gov/detain/detention-facilities/pine-prairie-ice-
processing-center (last visited April 16, 2026).
7 At the Show Cause Hearing, Respondent explained that although Petitioner’s detention
history shows 0756, Petitioner was removed at 8:56 a.m. EST. (DE 9-2).
Case 1:26-cv-21974-KMW Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 3 of 14
Page 4 of 14
B. Petitioner’s Habeas Corpus Petition.
On March 19, 2026, under the mailbox rule, Petitioner signed his petition for writ
of habeas corpus brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“ Petition”). (DE 1 at 9). The
envelope containing the Petition reveals it was file stamped in St. Petersburg, F lorida at
6:00 p.m. on March 21, 2026. (DE 1 at 11). On March 24, 2026, the Petition was received
by the Clerk of Court but was not opened and assigned to the Undersigned until 8:57 a.m.
on March 25, 2026.
On March 27, 2026, at 7:58 a.m., Respondent filed a Motion to Change Venue
(“Venue Motion”), seeking transfer of the Petition to the Middle District of Florida. (DE
4). Notably, although Petitioner’s detention history shows that he was in Texas on March
27, 2026, Respondent represented in its Venue M otion that Petitioner “is currently
detained” at the Florida Soft -Sided Facility -South. ( Id. at 2) . On that same day at
3:34 p.m., after receipt of Respondent’s Venue Motion, the Court entered multiple Orders,
including an Order to Show Cause (“Show Cause Order”) (DE 8), requiring Respondent
to address where Petitioner was first detained. (Id. at 2.) Respondent was also instructed
that Petitioner shall not be removed from FSS without prior order from the Court. (Id.)
Four days later, on March 31, 2026, at 10:49 a.m., Respondent filed a “Return”
(“Response”) (DE 9) to the Petition, arguing that the case was “moot” because Petitioner
had been removed prior to the entry of the Court’s Show Cause Order. (Id. at 1). As a
result, on that same day, the Court set a status conference for April 1, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.
(DE 10).
C. April 1, 2026 Status Conference.
On April 1, 2026 , a status conference was held in light of Respondent’s Venue
Case 1:26-cv-21974-KMW Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 4 of 14
Page 5 of 14
Motion and subsequent Response (“Status Conference”). The AUSA who signed the
two documents was unavailable due to a personal matter, so another attorney appeared
on behalf of Respondent. During the Status Conference, that AUSA represented to the
Court that Petitioner was removed to Mexico on March 27, 2026. The Court questioned
why Respondent represented in the Venue Motion that Petitioner was presently “in
custody” at FSS. The appearing AUSA stated that the assigned AUSA filed th e Venue
Motion based solely on Petitioner’s representation that he was housed at FSS. The Court
also inquired why the Venue Motion did not inform the Court that Petitioner had already
been removed from the United States; the AUSA explained that, at the time of filing, the
assigned AUSA was unaware of Petitioner’s removal. At the conclusion of the S tatus
Conference, the Court set the matter for a “show cause” hearing on April 2, 2026, at 2:00
p.m., requiring the assigned AUSA to be present. (DE 12).
D. April 2, 2026 Show Cause Hearing.
On April 2, 2026, the Court heard from Respondent regarding the discrepancy
between the Venue Motion and Petitioner’s detention history. (DE 17). As detailed below,
Respondent argued that significant time constraints and lack of readily accessible
information impacted Respondent’s ability to quickly and accurately apprise the Court of
Petitioner’s location.
II. DISCUSSION
At this juncture, while the conduct of the AUSA in question might not warrant
sanctions, the questions of what happened to Petitioner, why he was repeatedly moved
from Florida to Louisiana to Texas and back again, and how reliable ICE records are
remain unanswered. What is clear, and what was declaimed throughout the hearing, is
Case 1:26-cv-21974-KMW Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 5 of 14
Page 6 of 14
that ICE does not make its records available to its Department of Justice attorneys to
respond to court orders in a timely fashion. Accordingly, as explained below , the
Undersigned will amend procedures for habeas corpus petitions filed pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241 to address this deficiency . The Court will first discuss whether sanctions
should be imposed based on Respondent’s conduct and representations made during the
Show Cause Hearing and then discuss the remedy this Court is compelled to implement.
A. Whether sanctions should be imposed.
1. Rule 11 Sanctions.
The Court must determine whether an AUSA should be sanctioned for the material
misrepresentation made in the Venue Motion regarding Petitioner’s “current” location. (DE
4). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) states, in relevant part: that “[b]y presenting to
the Court a pleading, written motion, or other paper . . . an attorney or unrepresented
party certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed
after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances: it is not being presented for any
improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase
the cost of litigation, and that “the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if
specifically so identified, will likely have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity
for further investigation or discovery.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) (emphasis added). The Rule
11 certification and signature requirement “certifies to the court that the signer has read
the document, has conducted a reasonable inquiry into the facts and the law and is
satisfied that the document is well grounded in both, and is acting without any improper
motive.” Bus. Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Commc’ns Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 542– 43
(1991) (emphasis added) . Indeed, the Eleventh Circuit has made clear that “Rule 11
Case 1:26-cv-21974-KMW Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 6 of 14
Page 7 of 14
stresses the need for some prefiling inquiry.” Worldwide Primates, Inc. v. McGreal , 87
F.3d 1252, 1254 (11th Cir. 1996).
A court determining whether Rule 11 sanctions should be imposed, “first
determines whether the party’s claims are objectively frivolous —in view of the facts or
law—and then, if they are, whether the person who signed the pleadings should have
been aware that they were frivolous; that is, whether he would have been aware had he
made a reasonable inquiry.” Id. “If the attorney failed to make a reasonable inquiry, then
the court must impose sanctions despite the attorney’s good faith belief that the claims
were sound.” Id. “The reasonableness of inquiry may depend on such factors as how
much time for investigation was available to the signer” or whether the signer depended
on another member of the bar. Id.
Turning to the facts of this case, the Court finds Respondent’s representation that
Petitioner is “currently detained” in the “ Middle District of Florida ” to be objectively
frivolous. (DE 4 at 2). The record shows that Respondent— through the assigned AUSA
—filed the Venue Motion at 7:58 a.m. on March 27, 2026. (DE 4). However, according to
Petitioner’s detention history, Petitioner was transferred to Pine Prairie on March 24,
2026, to Port Isabel on March 25, 2026, and ultimately removed from the country on
March 27, 2026, at 8:56 a.m. EST—58 minutes after the Venue Motion was filed . (DE 9-
2).
8 Consequently, the undisputed facts show Petitioner was not at FSS when the Venue
8 As the Court noted during the Show Cause Hearing, a cursory review of the transport
times demonstrates that Respondent’s information is unreliable. Even accounting for the
change in time zones, a trip from Florida to Texas would take longer than the 1 hour and
1 minute reflected in Petitioner’s detention history of February 7th. (DE 9-2) (noting that
on Feb. 7, 2026, Petitioner left Miami, Florida at 2038 EST and arrived in Port Isabel,
Texas on Feb. 7, 2026, at 2039 CST).
Case 1:26-cv-21974-KMW Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 7 of 14
Page 8 of 14
Motion was filed, and therefore, the representation was objectively frivolous.
As to whether the person who signed the pleadings should have been aware that
the representation was frivolous, lawyers from the United States Attorney’s Office gave
the Court detailed recitations to explain why this was a “miscommunication” to the Court.
According to them, although the Petition was filed with the Court on March 24, 2026, the
case was not assigned to the AUSA in question until March 26 , 2026. As a result, the
assigned AUSA was not aware that ICE transferred Petitioner from FSS. They explained
that, upon receipt of the P etition on March 26, the AUSA reviewed the P etition and
prepared the draft Venue Motion predicated solely on the allegations apparent on the face
of the Petition. After preparing the draft, the AUSA departed the office at 4:30 p.m. due to
a prior family commitment. On that same day, at 5:00 p.m., an email was sent to the
AUSA advising that Petitioner had been transferred from FSS. Notably, these lawyers did
not explain what precipitated the sending of this particular email at this particular time, in
as much as the assigned AUSA had made no independent inquiry as to Petitioner’s
whereabouts. In any event, the AUSA did not see the email that evening as she had left
the office.
The very next day, on March 27, 2026, the AUSA reviewed the draft and submitted
the Venue Motion at 7:58 a.m., prior to checking any emails , including the email that
would have revealed Petitioner’s transfer. It was not until after the AUSA filed the Venue
Motion that she read her emails and learned that Petitioner was transferred out of FSS .
Despite learning that Petitioner was no longer at FSS, four (4) days elapsed before the
Court was informed of the transfer. Respondent asserted that this was because the AUSA
Case 1:26-cv-21974-KMW Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 8 of 14
Page 9 of 14
needed to confer and corroborate the information provided in the email .9 Indeed, the
response to the March 27, 2026 Show Cause Order, attaching Petitioner’s labyrinthine
detention history, informed the Court for the first time that not only was Petitioner not at
FSS when the Venue Motion was filed, but he had been removed from the country. (DE
9).
The Court pressed Respondent to determine whether the AUSA would have been
aware of Petitioner’s actual location had she made a reasonable inquiry into the Petition’s
allegations. Notwithstanding the March 26th email received the evening before advising
of Petitioner’s transfer, Respondent outlined the significant barriers hindering its ability to
quickly and accurately provide the Court with reliable information. Respondent cited the
“vast overload” of habeas petitions and the limited access to information on detainees.
Respondent also explained that when a petition is assigned to an AUSA, the AUSA relies
solely on the petition’s allegations to first determine whether there are procedural issues,
such as venue. Reliance on the petition is necessary, according to Respondent, because
the United States Attorney’s Office does not have immediate access to a petitioner’s file
or ICE locator for detainees . Respondent advised the Court that it cannot access the
Department of Homeland Security’s information systems, making it “very difficult for the
Department of Justice to give the court the most accurate information as quickly as
possible.” (April 2, 2026 Hrg.) Respondent cautioned that the underlying documents in an
individual’s “alien file” may be located in various places throughout the country, and that
while ICE endeavors to gather the information upon request , the process could take
9 The Court finds it tell ing that the assigned AUSA did not corroborate the factual
assertions of the Petition but did feel it necessary to confirm and corroborate the
information provided by a client agency, another Executive department.
Case 1:26-cv-21974-KMW Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 9 of 14
Page 10 of 14
several days or several months. Indeed, although the AUSA immediately requested
Petitioner’s detention history, she did not receive a copy of Petitioner’s location
information until several days later on March 30, 2026.
While it would have been reasonable, preferable and consistent with Florida Bar
Rules 4-3.110 and 4-1.311, for the AUSA to perform some due diligence before filing her
motion and inquire into the March 26 th email advising her of Petitioner’s transfer, the
Court reluctantly credits Respondent’s stated belief that lawyers in the United States
Attorney’s Office do not have access to a readily available detainee locator or a detention
history database. The Court notes —contrary to the understanding advanced by one of
the lawyers for Respondent —that there is a public -facing ICE Online Detainee Locator
System where users (purportedly) can find a detainee’s “Current Detention Facility.” See
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search (last
visited April 16 , 2026). Additionally, there is a toll -free service “that provides a direct
channel for agency stakeholders and the public to communicate with ERO to answer
questions and resolve concerns.” Id . Stakeholders may dial 1- 888-351-4024 to reach
“[l]ive, trained operators . . . Monday through Friday (excluding holidays) from 8 a.m. to 8
p.m. (Eastern Time)” where representatives will “assist with resolution on subjects such
as . . . [r]equests for basic case information.” Id. Therefore, the Court remains troubled by
10 FL Bar R. 4- 3.1 states, in relevant part, “[a] lawyer shall not bring or defend a
proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and
fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an
extension, modification, or reversal of existing law.”
11 FL Bar R. 4-1.3 states, “[a] lawyer shall act with reasonable diligence and promptness
in representing a client.”
Case 1:26-cv-21974-KMW Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 10 of 14
Page 11 of 14
the lack of independent verification by the AUSA of what the Respondent considers
dispositive facts, especially in light of Petitioner’s extensive travel history while in
detention.
Although the Court finds it problematic that the AUSA did not make a reasonable
inquiry into the underlying facts of the matter, and did not attempt to immediately remedy
the misrepresentation regarding Petitioner’s location, the Court accepts Respondent’s
insistence that the AUSA submitted the Venue Motion in good faith and that she lacked,
or was unaware of , the ability to verify the veracity of the allegations . Accordingly, the
Court will not issue Rule 11 sanctions.
2. Contempt Sanctions.
“A finding of civil contempt must be supported by clear and convincing evidence
that: 1) the allegedly violated order was valid and lawful; (2) the order was clear and
unambiguous; and 3) the alleged violator had the ability to comply with the order.” Mesa
v. Luis Garcia Land Serv. Co., 218 F. Supp. 3d 1375, 1380 (S.D. Fla. 2016) (citing F.T.C.
v. Leshin, 618 F.3d 1221, 1232 (11th Cir. 2010) ). The Show Cause Order was
unquestionably valid and lawful. The Show Cause Order clearly and unambiguously
prohibited Respondent from removing or transferring Petitioner from FS S “without prior
order from the Court permitting them to do so.” (DE 8 at 2). However, despite Respondent
representing on March 27, 2026, that Petitioner was “currently detained” at FSS,
Respondent did not have the ability to comply with the Show Cause Order because
Petitioner was transferred from FSS on March 24, 2026—six hours after the Petition was
assigned to the Undersigned and three days before the Show Cause Order was effective.
Therefore, the AUSA could not comply with the Order from its inception because
Case 1:26-cv-21974-KMW Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 11 of 14
Page 12 of 14
Petitioner was transferred before the AUSA was assigned to this case.12 As represented
by Respondent, the AUSA was “not aware or consulted” regarding Petitioner’s transfer.
(April 2, 2026 Hrg.). For this reason, contempt sanctions are not warranted.
B. The Court’s Remedy.
As described above, the Court was a few hours behind the final transfer when it
issued the Show Cause Order, which would have prohibited Petitioner’s premature
removal. (DE 8). During the Show Cause Hearing, Respondent explained that “ when
there is no order prohibiting transfer or deportation, ICE operations continue in effect until
an order is issued.” (April 2, 2026 Hrg.) According to Respondent, had the Court issued
the Show Cause Order on the day the case was assigned, Respondent would have
immediately provided the Order to ICE13 and removal proceedings would have halted. In
light of this assurance, and based on the robust discussion regarding Respondent’s time
constraints and inability to quickly verify information, see supra II(A), the Undersigned will
implement a revised procedure.
An order will be entered immediately once a habeas petition is assigned and will
prohibit transfer and removal until the Court, and government, can determine legal venue
and decide whether to r each the petition’s merits. More importantly, th is order will give
the Government five (5) days to respond, ensur ing that the Government has sufficient
time to investigate the underlying facts. The order will also give the Court confidence it is
receiving accurate information after reasonable inquiry, all while preserving the status
12 At the Show Cause Hearing, Respondent represented that the AUSA was assigned to
this case at 3:50 p.m. on March 26, 2026. (April 2, 2026 Hrg.)
13 Indeed, the Show Cause Order was immediately dispatched to ICE despite the fact that
the AUSA knew Petitioner had been removed to Mexico.
Case 1:26-cv-21974-KMW Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 12 of 14
Page 13 of 14
quo. To that end, t his procedure preserves the integrity of the process and assures the
Court that the process, as described by Respondent—immediately providing the order to
ICE and halting procedures —will prevent moot ness while legal issues are briefed and
resolved, without the need for a show cause hearing.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Show Cause Order is DISCHARGED.
2. Respondent is DIRECTED to promptly mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner’s
next of kin and file a notice of compliance on or before April 23, 2026.
3. All deadlines and hearings are CANCELED.
4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Miami, Florida, this 16th day of April, 2026.
Copies furnished to:
Jose Mario Garcia Valdes Pro Se
A# 074059315
South Florida Detention Facility
54575 Tamiami Trail E.
Ochopee, FL 3414
(address of record)
Carlos Javier Raurell, AUSA
Matthew James Feeley, AUSA
Natalie Diaz, AUSA
United States Attorney's Office
99 NE 4 Street
Case 1:26-cv-21974-KMW Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 13 of 14
Page 14 of 14
Miami, FL 33132
Email: carlos.raurell@usdoj.gov
Email: natalie.diaz@usdoj.gov
Email: matthew.feeley@usdoj.gov
Kelsi R. Romero, AUSA
Steven R. Petri, AUSA
United States Attorney's Office
500 E Broward Boulevard, 7th Floor
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3002
Email: Steve.Petri@usdoj.gov
Email: Kelsi.romero@usdoj.gov
Case 1:26-cv-21974-KMW Document 19 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/16/2026 Page 14 of 14