govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-2_26-cv-03504-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
 
FRED WAYNE MOCKSHELL,  
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
ALEXANDER CABEZAS, et al., 
 
Respondents. 
 
Civil Action No.  26-3504 
 
 
MEMORANDUM & ORDER 
 
This matter comes before the Court on a Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 
2241, which challenges Petitioner’s prolonged detention under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 
(2001).  For the reasons explained below, the Petition is dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE to 
Petitioner’s filing of an amended petition if he wishes to assert another claim for relief.  
Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, applicable to § 2241 
cases through Rule 1(b), this Court is required to examine a habeas petition prior to ordering an 
answer and dismiss the petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached 
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court”). Having examined the 
Petition, the Court finds that Petitioner is not entitled to relief under Zadvydas and will dismiss 
the Petition without prejudice with leave to amend.  
According to the Petition, Petitioner is a citizen and national of Ghana who entered the 
United States on a business visa on October 16, 2024, and has been held in immigration 
detention since January 21, 2025.  ECF No. 1, Petition at ¶¶ 1, 15.  As relevant here, Petitioner 
alleges that he “requested a bond hearing before an Immigration Judge. The request was denied 
on the stated ground that Petitioner posed a flight risk due to pending criminal charges.”  Id. at ¶ 
Case 2:26-cv-03504-MCA     Document 5     Filed 05/04/26     Page 1 of 3 PageID: <pageID>
24.  Petitioner was ordered removed on December 15, 2025, and he filed an appeal to the Board 
of Immigration Appeals on January 13, 2026, but no briefing schedule has been set.  Id. at ¶¶ 19-
20.   
Petitioner alleges that he is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231, the post-final-order statute, 
and that his detention is “well in excess of the six-month period that the Supreme Court has 
recognized as the presumptive outer limit for reasonably necessary post-order detention.” Id. at ¶ 
2 (citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001).  In Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. at 701, 
the United States Supreme Court held that the INA’s post-removal-period detention provision 
contains an implicit reasonableness limitation of six months, after which a noncitizen may not 
continue to be detained if “there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably 
foreseeable future.” 
Here however, Petitioner is still detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1226, which applies to 
noncitizens who do not have final orders of removal.  That provision provides that “an alien may 
be arrested and detained pending a decision on whether the alien is to be removed from the 
United States.” § 1226(a).
1  “Section 1231, by contrast, authorizes detention ‘when an alien is 
ordered removed’ and enters the ‘removal period,’ which begins on ‘[t]he date the order of 
removal becomes administratively final.’”  Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 534–35 
(2021) (citing §§ 1231(a)(1)(A)–(B), (2)).  A removal order becomes administratively final once 
“the BIA has reviewed the order (or the time for seeking the BIA's review has expired).”  
Johnson, 594 U.S. at 534–35.  Because it appears that Petitioner’s appeal is still pending before 
the BIA, his removal order is not administratively final, and he is still subject to detention under 
8 U.S.C. § 1226.  Because Petitioner is not detained under § 1231, the six-month presumption in 
 
1 It is not clear whether Petitioner is subject to mandatory detention under §1226(c).  
Case 2:26-cv-03504-MCA     Document 5     Filed 05/04/26     Page 2 of 3 PageID: <pageID>
Zadvydas is inapplicable.  The Court will dismiss the Petition without prejudice on that basis and 
lift the stay of transfer entered at ECF No. 4.  Within 30 days, Petitioner may file an amended 
petition if he has another basis for relief.   
 THEREFORE, it is on this 1st day of  May 2026,   
ORDERED that, in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, 
applicable to § 2241 cases through Rule 1(b), this Court has examined the Petition and determined 
that it is subject to dismissal at screening; and it is further 
 ORDERED that the Petition is dismissed WITHOUT PREJUDICE for the reasons stated 
in this Memorandum & Order; and it is further  
 ORDERED that the stay of transfer entered at ECF No. 4 is hereby VACATED; and it is 
further  
 ORDERED that Petitioner may file an Amended Petition within 30 days if he wishes to 
raise another claim for relief; and it is further  
 ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall ADMINISTRATIVELY TERMINATE this 
case accordingly. 
 
s/ Madeline Cox Arleo              
MADELINE COX ARLEO 
United States District Judge 
                                                                                                                                        
 
Case 2:26-cv-03504-MCA     Document 5     Filed 05/04/26     Page 3 of 3 PageID: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight