govinfo:USCOURTS-njd-2_26-cv-02931-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY 
 
 
DAVITI SOKHADZE,  
 
Petitioner, 
 
v. 
 
LUIS SOTO, et al., 
 
Respondents. 
 
Civil Action No.  26-2931 (MCA) 
 
 
MEMORANDUM & ORDER 
 
Petitioner is a citizen of Georgia with a final order of removal who has filed a habeas 
petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which challenges the revocation of his supervised release 
and his detention since September 3, 2025.  (See ECF No. 1.)  He has also filed an application 
for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) seeking to stay his transfer from this District and his 
removal from the United States.  (ECF No. 4.)     
“Federal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that appears 
legally insufficient on its face.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856 (1994); United States v. 
Thomas, 221 F.3d 430, 437 (3d Cir. 2000). Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 
2254 Cases, applicable to § 2241 cases through Rule 1(b), the Court has examined this Petition 
and determined that dismissal prior to the answer is not warranted.   
As noted above, petitioner also filed a TRO seeking to enjoin his transfer from this 
District and his removal from the United States.  “A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary 
remedy never awarded as of right.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008) 
(citing Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008)). To obtain a TRO or preliminary 
injunctive relief, a petitioner must typically demonstrate (1) that he is reasonably likely to prevail 
Case 2:26-cv-02931-MCA     Document 6     Filed 04/22/26     Page 1 of 4 PageID: <pageID>
eventually in the litigation and (2) that he is likely to suffer irreparable injury without relief. If 
these two threshold showings are made, the District Court then considers, to the extent relevant, 
(3) whether an injunction would harm respondents more than denying relief would harm the 
plaintiff and (4) whether granting relief would serve the public interest. See Hope v. Warden 
York Cnty. Prison, 972 F.3d 310, 319–20 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing A. ex rel. Ayers v. Pocono 
Mountain Sch. Dist., 710 F.3d 99, 105 (3d Cir. 2013)).  
Here, Chief Judge Bumb entered a Text Order on March 20, 2026, staying Petitioner’s 
transfer from New Jersey pending further Order of the Court.  (ECF No. 2.)  In light of this relief 
to preserve the status quo, the Court denies without prejudice petitioner’s request for a TRO 
because Petitioner has not addressed whether this Court has the authority to enjoin respondents, 
even temporarily, from executing his removal order.  See Tazu v. Att’y Gen., 975 F.3d 292, 297 
(3d Cir. 2020) (“The plain text of [8 U.S.C.] § 1252(g) covers decisions about whether and when 
to execute a removal order” and “funnels jurisdiction over that challenge into a petition for 
review in a single court of appeals.”).  The Petitioner’s claims are based in part on Zadvydas v. 
Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701 (2001), which 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.”  In light of the length of Petitioner’s detention, Respondents must establish 
to the Court’s satisfaction that Petitioner’s removal is reasonably foreseeable, but the appropriate 
relief on that claim is release from detention and not an order enjoining his removal.  
For these reasons, the Court denies without prejudice petitioner’s motion for a TRO.  
(ECF No. 4.)  The Court directs Respondents to file their answer within 14 days.  Petitioner may 
file a reply brief within 14 days thereafter.  
Case 2:26-cv-02931-MCA     Document 6     Filed 04/22/26     Page 2 of 4 PageID: <pageID>
 THEREFORE, it is on this 21st day of March 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 dismissal of the Petition prior to submission of an answer and the record is not warranted; and 
it is further 
ORDERED that petitioner’s motion for a TRO or a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 4) 
is denied without prejudice for the reasons stated herein; and it is further  
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall serve copies of the Petition and this Order 
upon respondents by regular mail, with all costs of service advanced by the United States; and it 
is further 
 ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall forward a copy of the Petition and this 
Order to Chief, Civil Division, United States Attorney’s Office, at the following email address:  
USANJ-HabeasCases@usdoj.gov; and it is further  
ORDERED that within 14 days, respondent shall electronically file a full and complete 
answer to said Petition, which responds to all factual and legal allegations of the Petition; and it 
is further 
  ORDERED that the answer shall state the statutory authority for petitioner’s detention, 
see 28 U.S.C. § 2243, and provide the relevant legal analysis and record; and it is further 
 ORDERED that respondent shall raise in the answer any appropriate defenses and 
relevant legal arguments with citations to appropriate legal authority; and it is further 
 ORDERED that respondent shall electronically file with the answer certified copies of 
the administrative record and all other documents relevant to petitioner’s claims; and it is further 
Case 2:26-cv-02931-MCA     Document 6     Filed 04/22/26     Page 3 of 4 PageID: <pageID>
 ORDERED that petitioner may file and serve a reply in support of the Petition within 14 
days after the answer is filed; and it is further 
 ORDERED that Respondents are free to ask the Court to lift the Order enjoining 
Petitioner’s transfer from New Jersey; any such request must be filed on the docket and 
accompanied by evidence that Petitioner’s removal is imminent; and it is further   
 ORDERED that within 7 days after any change in petitioner’s custody or immigration 
status (be it release or otherwise) occurring any time during the pendency of this case, 
respondents shall electronically file a written notice of the same with the Clerk of the Court. 
    
 
                                
 s/ Madeline Cox Arleo              
MADELINE COX ARLEO 
United States District Judge 
                                                                                                                                        
   
  
 
Case 2:26-cv-02931-MCA     Document 6     Filed 04/22/26     Page 4 of 4 PageID: <pageID>

Passage view · GavelSight