Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
LUISA FERNANDA BOHORQUEZ MURCIA, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. 1:25-cv-01825-TWP-TAB
)
NATASHA DOUGLASS Jail Commander and
Warden, Clinton County Jail,
)
)
SAMUEL OLSON Chicago Field Office Director,
ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations,
)
)
TODD LYONS Acting Director, U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement,
)
)
KRISTI NOEM Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security,
)
)
)
Respondents. 	)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO RECONSIDER, VACATING FINAL JUDGMENT,
GRANTING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, AND ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner Luisa Fernanda Bohorquez Murcia's
("Murcia") Motion for Reconsideration. (Dkt. 15). Murcia, a Colombian national, initiated this
action seeking habeas, declaratory, and injunctive relief to find that Respondents Natasha
Douglass, Samuel Olson, Todd Lyons, and Kristi Noem's (collectively, "Respondents") actions in
prolonging her detention are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in
accordance with law. (Dkt. 1). For the reasons explained below, Murcia's motion to reconsider is
granted, and the Court vacates its prior entry of final judgment and grants Murcia's petition for
writ of habeas corpus.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Murcia has been in the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE")
since she entered the United States without valid entry documents in February 2024, and she has
been subject to a final order of removal since February 2025. (Dkt. 1-1). On September 12, 2025,
Case 1:25-cv-01825-TWP-TAB Document 19 Filed 11/04/25 Page 1 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Murcia petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, asserting—among other arguments—that her
continued detention by ICE violates her Fifth Amendment due process rights because she is not
likely to be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future. (Dkt. 1); see Zadvydas v. Davis, 533
U.S. 678 (2001). The Court denied the petition on September 26, 2025, based on the Respondents'
submission of an affidavit attesting that Murcia was scheduled to depart the United States for
Bolivia only three days later. (Dkt. 9-1 ¶ 16; Dkt. 10). However, that deportation did not occur.
On October 27, 2025, Murcia filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the denial of her
petition, stating that she remains confined at the Clinton County Jail. (Dkt. 15). She reiterates her
argument that her continued detention is unlawful because her removal is not reasonably
foreseeable. (Dkt. 15 at 5–6 (citing Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701)). Shortly thereafter, the Court
issued a show cause order to Respondents, including the following instructions: "The Respondents
have through Friday, October 31, 2025, to respond to the Motion To Reconsider and SHOW
CAUSE why the Court should not grant the relief requested in Murcia's habeas petition" and
"SHOW CAUSE for the discrepancy between their representations to the Court and the facts."
(Dkt. 16 at 3 (emphases in original)).
Respondents responded to the show cause order on October 31, 2025. (Dkt. 17).
Respondents admit that Murcia has not been removed from the United States and that she remains
in custody at the Clinton County Jail. Id. However, despite the Court's unambiguous instructions,
the Respondents' response did not address the legality of Murcia's detention, or why the Court
should not grant her immediate release. Instead, Respondents devote the entirety of their response
to explaining the disconnect between their original representation to the Court and the reality that
unfolded.1
1 Respondents now assert that Murcia cannot be removed to Bolivia, but that the State Department "is working on"
removal to two other countries. (Dkt. 17 at 2).
Case 1:25-cv-01825-TWP-TAB Document 19 Filed 11/04/25 Page 2 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
II. 	LEGAL STANDARDS
A. 	Motions for Reconsideration
Motions for reconsideration of a final judgment fall within the ambit of either Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). The Seventh Circuit permits the courts to construe such motions
as having been filed pursuant to Rule 59(e) or Rule 60(b) when they challenge the merits of a
district court's decision to ensure that claims are heard on their substance rather than dismissed on
procedural grounds. See Obriecht v. Raemisch, 517 F.3d 489, 493 (7th Cir. 2008). Under Rule
59(e), the Court may alter or amend a judgment to correct clear error, account for newly discovered
evidence, or prevent manifest injustice. Id. at 493–94. Alternatively, Rule 60(b) permits relief from
a judgment for mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, newly discovered evidence, fraud, or
"any other reason that justifies relief." Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b).
B. 	Writ of Habeas Corpus
A federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner "is in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
III. 	DISCUSSION
Murcia argues that the misstatements in the Declaration of Supervisory Detention
Deportation Officer Carly A. Schilling, and the newly discovered evidence that Murcia remains in
the U.S. in custody, "separately and together provide a sufficient basis for relief under both Rule
59 and 60." (Dkt. 15 at 4). The Court agrees. The Court denied Murcia's petition in reliance on the
declaration by detention officer Schilling that Murcia's removal was not only reasonably
foreseeable, but scheduled in just three days and imminent. (Dkt. 10). Respondents' assertion that
removal would occur imminently (Dkt. 9-1) has proven false. In their response to the show cause
Case 1:25-cv-01825-TWP-TAB Document 19 Filed 11/04/25 Page 3 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
order, Respondents admit that they were mistaken and that Murcia's continued detention is newly
discovered evidence. (Dkts. 17-1, 17-2). Accordingly, reconsideration is warranted.
The Court is also persuaded that it must grant Murcia's request for a writ of habeas corpus.
After the 90-day period immediately following a final order of removal, detention under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1231 is permissible only for the purpose of facilitating removal. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 697.
"[O]nce removal is no longer reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized
by statute." Id. at 699. Detention is presumptively constitutional for six months. Id. at 700–01.
Afterward, "once the alien provides good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood
of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the government must respond with evidence
sufficient to rebut that showing." Id. at 701.
Murcia has provided reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in
the reasonably foreseeable future. She has been subject to a final removal order for over eight
months now; she has not been removed; and Respondents have not tendered any evidence of plans
to remove Murcia in the reasonably foreseeable future. Respondents have not even attempted to
rebut Murcia's showing. It is undisputed that Murcia's "removal is no longer reasonably
foreseeable, and continued detention is no longer authorized by" § 1231d, as it violates the Fifth
Amendment. Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 699. Because Murcia is in custody contrary to the Constitution
and laws of the United States, 8 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), her petition must be granted, and she must
be released.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Murcia has provided reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of her removal
in the reasonably foreseeable future. In view of the parties' filings, the Court now issues the
following orders.
Case 1:25-cv-01825-TWP-TAB Document 19 Filed 11/04/25 Page 4 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
1. 	Murcia's Motion for Reconsideration, Dkt. [15], is GRANTED.
2. 	The Court VACATES the final judgment, Dkt. [11], entered September 26, 2025.
3. 	Murcia's Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Complaint for Declaratory
Relief, Dkt. [1], is GRANTED.2 The Court DECLARES that Murcia's continued detention
violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), and/or
the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
4. 	Respondents will have 48 hours to CERTIFY that Murcia has been released from
detention.
5. 	Respondents have not shown cause why the Court should not grant the relief
requested in Murcia's habeas petition. However, they have shown cause for the discrepancy
between their representations to the Court that Murcia's removal was imminent, and the facts.
Therefore, the Court will DISCHARGE the show cause order.
6. 	Murcia's request for attorney's fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act,
8 U.S.C. § 2412, and on any other basis justified under law, see Dkt. 1 at 17, must be presented in
a proper motion under Federal rule of Civil Procedure 54(d) and Local Rule 54-1. Any such motion
and accompanying brief should be filed within 14 days of the date of this Order. Thereafter,
Respondents will have 14 days to respond.
7. 	The clerk is directed to enter final judgment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: 11/4/2025
Distribution:
2 Because Murcia has prevailed on her writ, the Court need not address or grant her request for injunctive relief.
Case 1:25-cv-01825-TWP-TAB Document 19 Filed 11/04/25 Page 5 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
Kristen Elizabeth Coffey
Panyard Holton Immigration LLC
kristen@panyardholtonimmigration.com
Shelese M. Woods
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE (Indianapolis)
shelese.woods@usdoj.gov
Natasha Douglass, pro se
Commander and warden, Clinton County Jail
Case 1:25-cv-01825-TWP-TAB Document 19 Filed 11/04/25 Page 6 of 6 PageID #:
<pageID>