Errasti Kessell v. Warden, Florida Soft Side South Facility et al
| Davier Errasti Kessell |
| Warden, Florida Soft Side South Facility and U.S. Attorney General |
| 2:2026cv01685 |
| May 18, 2026 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Ft. Myers Office |
| Sheri Polster Chappell |
| Nicholas P Mizell |
| Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 18, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 PROOF of service - U.S. Attorney General served on 06/01/2026. (JDR) |
| Filing 11 PROOF of service - Attorney General of the United States served on 5/29/2026. (TDC) |
| Filing 10 JUDGMENT entered pursuant to this Court's Order, entered June 3, 2026, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. 1) is DENIED. Signed by Deputy Clerk on 6/5/2026. (LSS) |
Filing 9
OPINION AND ORDER. Davier Erasti Kessell's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #1) is DENIED without prejudice. The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate any pending motions and deadlines, enter judgment, and close this case. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 6/3/2026. (SAP)
|
|
Filing 8
ENDORSED ORDER denying Respondent Warden of Florida Soft Side South Facility's Motion to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. #6). "The federal habeas statute straightforwardly provides that the proper respondent to a habeas petition is the person who has custody over the petitioner." Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004) (cleaned up). While courts have recognized that immigration detainees in state-run facilities can bring habeas claims against certain federal officials, see, e.g., Masingene v. Martin, 424 F. Supp. 3d 1298, 1301 (S.D. Fla. 2020), the immediate custodian is also a proper respondent. As the immediate custodian of the petitioner, the Warden is a proper respondent to his habeas petition. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 5/29/2026. (SAP)
|
| Filing 7 RESPONSE to #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by U.S. Attorney General. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D)(Sullins, Somadina) |
| Filing 6 MOTION to Dismiss Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by Warden, Florida Soft Side South Facility. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit "A", #2 Exhibit "B")(Meros, Nicholas) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE of Appearance by Nicholas John Peter Meros on behalf of Warden, Florida Soft Side South Facility (Meros, Nicholas) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER to respond and show cause why the petition should not be granted. The Clerk is directed to serve the petition. The Petitioner has 3 days to reply to the response to petition. Response to petition due by 5/28/2026. Signed by Judge Sheri Polster Chappell on 5/21/2026. (TDC)
|
|
Filing 3
ENDORSED ORDER granting #2 Petitioner's application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. The court has reviewed the application submitted by Petitioner under 28 U.S.C. 1915 and finds Petitioner qualifies to proceed in forma pauperis. Petitioner may proceed without paying the filing fee. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell on 5/21/2026. (TLP)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis / Affidavit of Indigency by Davier Errasti Kessell. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope)(LAW) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Nicholas P. Mizell. |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus - Federal filed by Davier Errasti Kessell. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope)(LAW) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Florida Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
