govinfo:USCOURTS-flsd-1_26-cv-21987-0

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 
 

RICARDO GONZALEZ ALMEIDA, 
Petitioner, 
v. 
WARDEN, KROME NORTH SERVICE 
PROCESSING CENTER, 
 
Respondent. 
____________________________________/ 
 
ORDER 
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Respondent’s Response to Order to Show Cause 
[ECF No. 7], filed on April 10, 2026. The Respondent has argued that the Petition must be denied 
because, inter alia , Petitioner is detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). The Court agrees with 
Respondent that Petitioner is not entitled to a bond hearing or release from detention. 
I. BACKGROUND 
On March 24, 2026, pro se Petitioner Ricardo Gonzalez Almeida (“Petitioner”) filed this 
Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [ECF No. 1]. Petitioner is a native and 
citizen of Cuba. [ECF No. 7-1 at 2]. Petitioner has an extensive criminal record over the past thirty 
years. [ECF No. 7 at 2–4]. On July 19, 1990, legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) 
officers encountered Petitioner at a correctional facility in Wrightstown, New Jersey, where he was 
serving a four-year sentence for distribution of a controlled dangerous substance and violation of 
probation. [ECF No. 7-1 at 2]. On October 11, 1996, the legacy INS placed Petitioner into exclusion 
proceedings by issuing a Notice to Applicant for Admission Detained for Hearing before Immigration 
Judge. [ECF No. 7 -2]. On May 23, 1997, an Immigration Judge ordered Petitioner excluded from 
the United States. [ECF No. 7-6 at 2]. 
Case 1:26-cv-21987-DSL Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2026 Page 1 of 4
2 
 
 
On October 31, 2025, I mmigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Enforcement and 
Removal Operations (“ERO”) took Petitioner into custody. [ECF No. 7 -8 at 3]. On November 1, 
2025, ICE ERO revoked Petitioner’s Order of Supervision because ICE ERO determined there was 
a significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future in Petitioner’s case. [ECF No. 
7-9 at 2]. ICE ERO conducted an informal interview with Petitioner on that same date regarding the 
reason for the revocation of his Order of Supervision and to afford Petitioner an opportunity to 
respond to those reasons. [ECF No. 7 -11 ¶ 46]. On December 12, 2025, Petitioner was served a 
Notice of Removal to Mexico, which Petitioner refused to sign. [ECF No. 7-10 at 2]. On March 30, 
2026, ICE ERO attempted to remove Petitioner to Mexico, but could not effectuate the removal. 
[ECF No. 7-11 ¶ 49]. Petitioner is currently detained at the Krome North Service Processing Center 
in Miami, Florida. [ECF No. 7-3 at 1]. 
II. LEGAL STANDARD 
District courts have the authority to grant writs of habeas corpus. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). 
Habeas corpus is fundamentally “a remedy for unlawful executive detention.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 
674, 693 (2008) (citation omitted). A writ may be issued to a petitioner who demonstrates that he is 
being held in custody in violation of the Constitution or federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The 
Court’s jurisdiction extends to challenges involving immigration -related detention. See Zadvydas v. 
Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). 
III. DISCUSSION 
Petitioner moves for habeas relief and argues his detention is unlawful, citing Zadvydas from 
the Supreme Court. [ECF No. 1 ¶ 13]. But Petitioner challenges a post -removal detention order, 
which calls for a specific period of detention before seeking relief under established principles of this 
Circuit. For the reasons stated, Petitioner’s request is premature and must be denied. 
Section 1231(a) of the INA applies to aliens who are subject to a final order of removal. See 8 
Case 1:26-cv-21987-DSL Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2026 Page 2 of 4
3 
 
 
U.S.C. § 1231(a). When an alien is ordered removed, “the Attorney General shall remove the alien 
from the United States within a period of 90 days[,]” which is known as the “removal period.” Id. 
Once the order of removal is finalized, the Government should do its best to execute removal during 
the ninety-day period. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 699–701. But sometimes the Government does not 
timely remove the petitioner, so the indefinite detention of an alien “raises serious constitutional 
concerns.” Sosa v. Warden, Baker Corr. Inst., No. 26-cv-51, 2026 WL 592434, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 3, 
2026). “The Supreme Court in Zadvydas held that six months is a presumptively reasonable period to 
detain a removable alien awaiting deportation.” Id. 
To obtain relief from a post -removal order of detention under the Zadvydas framework, a 
petitioner must: “(1) show that he’s been detained for more than six months; and (2) establish that 
there’s no significant likelihood of removal in the foreseeable future.” Flores-Reyes v. Assistant Field Off. 
Dir., No. 26-cv-20226, 2026 WL 406708, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 13, 2026) (Altman, J.) (citing Akinwale 
v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 1050, 1052 (11th Cir. 2002) (“[T]o state a claim under Zadvydas the alien not only 
must show post-removal order detention in excess of six months but also must provide evidence of a 
good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable 
future.”)). 
Here, Petitioner was ordered removed in March 1997, so this challenge is governed by 
Zadvydas. [See ECF No. 7-6 at 2]. However, Petitioner was detained beginning on October 31, 2025, 
[ECF No. 1 ¶ 11(a); ECF No. 7-8 at 3], and the instant Petition was filed on March 2 4, 2026. [ECF 
No. 1]. As such, his detention falls short of the time required to receive the benefit of the Zadvydas 
presumption of unreasonableness. Petitioner’s request is premature. See Flores-Reyes, 2026 WL 406708, 
at *2 (dismissing habeas petition as premature because the post -removal order detention did not 
exceed six months). 
 
Case 1:26-cv-21987-DSL Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2026 Page 3 of 4
4 
 
 
IV. CONCLUSION 
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 
1. The Petition [ECF No. 1] is DENIED. 
2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to CLOSE this case. All deadlines are TERMINATED, and 
any pending motions are DENIED as moot. 
3. The Clerk is further DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to Petitioner. 
 
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on May 13, 2026. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cc: counsel of record 
Ricardo Gonzalez Almeida, Pro Se 
A# 022-798-846 
Krome Service Processing Center 
Inmate Mail/Parcels 
18201 SW 12th Street 
Miami, FL 33194 
 
Case 1:26-cv-21987-DSL Document 9 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/13/2026 Page 4 of 4

Passage view · GavelSight