govinfo:USCOURTS-pamd-4_26-cv-02213-0

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 
 
MUSA SHERIFF, 
 
  Petitioner, 
 
 v. 
 
WARDEN OF FCI-LEWISBURG 
DETENTION CENTER, et al., 
 
  Respondents. 
 No. 4:26-CV-02213 
 
 (Chief Judge Brann) 
 
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
 
SEPTEMBER 29, 2026 
I. BACKGROUND 
Musa Sheriff, currently a detainee of the United States Department of 
Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) , has filed this 
28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition seeking hi s release from ICE custody. 1 Specifically, he 
alleges that his continued confinement without a bond hearing violates his 
constitutional rights.2 
Sheriff, a citizen and native of the Re public of Liberia, entered the United 
States of America in 1999 and was admitted as a refugee. 3 In 2004, Sheriff was 
charged with criminal threatening, and the Government then sought his removal 
 
1  Doc. 1. 
2  Id.  
3  Doc. 8-2 at 3. 
Case 4:26-cv-02213-MWB     Document 9     Filed 09/29/26     Page 1 of 6
2 
from the United States based upon that criminal conviction. 4 On March 2, 2025, 
Sheriff was arrested by ICE after reporting for a scheduled check-in; he has remained 
in ICE custody since that date. 5 Sheriff is currently detained at the Federal 
Correctional Institution, Lewisburg (“FCI Lewisburg”), located within the Middle 
District of Pennsylvania.6  
In August of 2026 Sheriff filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition arguing that his 
continued detention violates the Due Process Clause of the United States 
Constitution.7 He avers that his detention is unc onstitutionally prolonged, and he is 
entitled to release from custody. 8 The Government responds that Sheriff is subject 
to mandatory detention and he is not  entitled to a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1226(c).9 Respondents further contend that Sheriff’s duration of detention without 
a bond hearing has not become unconstitutionally excessive.10 
Sheriff has not filed a reply brief and the time to do so has now lapsed, 
rendering this matter ripe for disposition.  For the reasons discussed below, the 
petition will be granted. 
  
 
4  See Doc. 8-4. 
5  Doc. 1 at 2; Doc. 8-2 at 3. 
6  Doc. 1 at 2. 
7  See Doc. 1. 
8  Id. at 4-6. 
9  Doc. 8 at 4-13. 
10  Id. at 13-19. 
Case 4:26-cv-02213-MWB     Document 9     Filed 09/29/26     Page 2 of 6
3 
II. DISCUSSION 
Sheriff brings his claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which provides, as 
relevant here, that it applies to any individual who is “in custody for an act done or 
omitted in pursuance of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or decree 
of a court or judge of the United States.”11 As the Supreme Court of the United States 
has emphasized, when ICE detainees ch allenge “their confinement” pending 
removal, “their claims fall w ithin the ‘core’ of the writ of habeas corpus and thus 
must be brought in” a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. 12 Sheriff’s claim is therefore 
properly brought in this petition. 
Respondents argue that Sheriff is properly detained pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 
§ 1226(c) as he has previously been convicted of a qualifying offense, 13 a 
proposition that Sheriff does not dispute. 14 However, the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Third Circuit has held th at, even under this mandatory detention 
scheme, “‘when detention becomes unreasonable, the Due Process Clause demands 
a hearing.’”15 
“Reasonableness is a ‘highly fact-specific’ inquiry,” and the Third Circuit has 
provided four factors that courts should examine in considering the reasonableness 
 
11  28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(2). 
12  Trump v. J.G.G., 604 U.S. 670, 672 (2025). 
13  Doc. 8 at 4-13. 
14  See Doc. 1. 
15  German Santos v. Warden Pike Cnty. Corr. Facility, 965 F.3d 203, 210 (3d Cir. 2020) (quoting 
Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221, 233 (3d Cir. 2011)). 
Case 4:26-cv-02213-MWB     Document 9     Filed 09/29/26     Page 3 of 6
4 
of an individual’s detention.16 Those factors include: (1) the “duration of detention”; 
(2) “whether the detention is likely to continue”; (3) “the reasons for the delay”; and 
(4) whether the “conditions of confinem ent are ‘meaningfully different’ from 
criminal punishment.” 17 If detention has become unreasonably lengthy, an 
individual is “entitled to a bond hearing to gauge whether he still needs to be detained 
to keep him from fleeing or committing more  crimes,” at which “the Government 
bears the burden of proof . . . to ju stify detention by cl ear and convincing 
evidence.”18 
 Applying those factors here, Sheriff has been detained since March of 2025—
nearly nineteen months. Courts routinely find detention excessive  after similar or 
shorter durations. 19 Furthermore, Sheriff’s detenti on is likely to continue for the 
foreseeable future, as his appeal of his removal order remains pending before the 
Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”),20 and that court “currently faces a massive 
backlog, with 282,434 appeals pending at last report.”21 Moreover, once that appeal 
 
16  Id. (quoting Chavez-Alvarez v. Warden York Cnty. Prison, 783 F.3d 469, 474 (3d Cir. 2015)). 
17  Id. at 211 (quoting Chavez-Alvarez, 783 F.3d at 478 (brackets omitted)) 
18  Id. at 213. 
19  See W.A.C. v. Rokosky , 836 F. Supp. 3d 577, 586 (D.N.J. 2026) (detention of more than one 
year “weighs heavily” in favor of granting petition); Michelin v. Oddo, No. 3:23-CV-22, 2023 
WL 5044929, at *6 (W.D. Pa. Aug. 8, 2023) (18-mont h detention “weighs strongly” in favor 
of a bond hearing); Alvarado v. Soto , No. CV 26-1032 (MAS), 2026 WL 2349924, at *4 
(D.N.J. Aug. 13, 2026) (finding duration of more than eight months favored a bond hearing). 
20  Doc. 8 at 3. 
21  Carmona Leyva v. Sage, No. 4:26-CV-01986, 2026 WL 2 408332, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 6, 
2026), report and recommendation adopted , No. 4:26-CV-01986, 2026 WL 2411130 (M.D. 
Pa. Aug. 14, 2026). 
Case 4:26-cv-02213-MWB     Document 9     Filed 09/29/26     Page 4 of 6
5 
is concluded, Sheriff “has the right to ap peal such a decision to the Third Circuit, 
which would extend his detention even further, with no definite end point.”22 
The third factor, reasons for any delay, is neutral. The record does not indicate 
that “either party made careless or bad-fa ith ‘errors in the proceedings that caused 
unnecessary delay,’”23 and therefore “this factor does not favor either side.”24  
The fourth factor, whether conditions  of confinement are meaningfully 
different from criminal punishment, weighs in Sheriff’s favor. In considering this 
factor, if an individual’s confinement “l ooks penal, that tilts  the scales toward 
finding the detention unreasonable.” 25 Sheriff is confined at FCI Lewisburg, a 
federal prison. “And while Respondents state that [Sheriff] is not confined to his cell 
for 23 hours per day as was the case in German Santos , that assertion ‘does not 
explain how such detention-center conditions differ from those found in a prison 
setting.’”26 Despite Sheriff’s detention being labeled as civil in nature, it appears 
identical to criminal detention, and this factor therefore weighs in his favor. 
Balancing the relevant factors demonstrates that Sheriff’s detention has 
become unconstitutionally prolonged, and due process demands that he be provided 
 
22  Id. 
23  German Santos, 965 F.3d at 211 (quoting Diop v. ICE/Homeland Sec., 656 F.3d 221, 234 (3d 
Cir. 2011) (brackets omitted)). 
24  Id. at 212. 
25  Id. at 211. 
26  Xu v. Warden, Pike Cnty. Corr. Ctr., No. 4:26-CV-01895, 2026 WL 2547342, at *2 (M.D. Pa. 
Aug. 28, 2026) (quoting Nyamekye v. U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t , No. 4:23-CV-01541, 
2024 WL 1890375, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Apr. 30, 2024)). 
Case 4:26-cv-02213-MWB     Document 9     Filed 09/29/26     Page 5 of 6
6 
a bond hearing at which the Government must demonstrate by clear and convincing 
evidence that he presents a danger or a flight risk. Accordingly, Sheriff’s petition 
will be granted. 
III. CONCLUSION   
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Respondents have violated 
Sheriff’s due process rights . Consequently, his petition wi ll be granted, and the 
Government will be required to provide Sheriff with a bond hearing or release him 
from custody. 
An appropriate Order follows.   
    
       B Y  T H E  C O U R T :  
 
 
s/ Matthew W. Brann 
       M a t t h e w  W .  B r a n n  
       Chief United States District Judge 
Case 4:26-cv-02213-MWB     Document 9     Filed 09/29/26     Page 6 of 6

Passage view · GavelSight