MUILU LUKANU v. LYONS et al

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
BENIE MUILU LUKANU, 	)
)
Petitioner 	)
)
v. 	) 	No. 2:26-cv-00095-LEW
)
TODD LYONS, Acting Director of 	)
U.S. Immigration and Customs 	)
Enforcement, et al., 	)
)
Respondents 	)
ORDER
On this day, Benie Muilu Lukanu (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1). 	According to the petition, which is not
verified, Petitioner was previously removed from the United States and has since reentered.
Petitioner is presently subject to an order of removal. She is not presently in detention but
is subject to restraints on her liberty that likely give her standing to petition for habeas
corpus relief.
Petitioner claims that, given her particular circumstances, the Due Process Clause
of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution entitles her to a bond hearing as
a precondition to being arrested to carry out her removal order. 	Petitioner also relies on
alleged past practices of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, though not on any
statutory entitlement found in the Immigration and Nationality Act. Petitioner also claims
an entitlement to be free of electronic monitoring and curfews pending removal.
Case 2:26-cv-00095-LEW Document 5 Filed 02/24/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
Petitioner has not filed a motion for temporary restraining order, but requests within
her Petition a “prohibitory Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the Respondents from
‘re-arresting [Petitioner] unless and until a hearing, with adequate notice, is held in
Immigration Court to determine whether [her] bond should be revoked or altered.’” Pet. ¶
23 (quoting Ortega v. Bonnar, 415 F. Supp. 3d 963, 970 (N.D. Cal. 2019)). See also Pet.
¶ 24 (citing Ferreira v. Lyons, No. 25-cv-13809-MJJ, slip op. at *4 (D. Mass. Jan. 26,
2026).
Based on a review of the Petition and supporting documents, all of which lack
verification or other attestation, the request for a temporary restraining order is denied. The
request is denied at this juncture principally because the Petition is not verified. However,
even if it were verified or is soon superseded by a verified petition, I am not persuaded that
Petitioner is likely to succeed on the merits of her due process theory. 	My immediate
impression of the cited authority is that it stretches precedent beyond the context in which
it arose and disregards the procedural (not to mention statutory) significance of an order of
removal. Furthermore, given Petitioner’s current condition of being released on her own
recognizance, albeit subject to monitoring, I am not persuaded that she is experiencing
irreparable injury that necessitates immediate relief before Respondents are heard and
before I am able to evaluate the merits fully, assuming that Petitioner files a verified
petition in due course.
However, in the event that a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus is filed,
Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the petition should not be
granted. The response is due by 5:00 p.m. three days after a verified petition is filed. See
Case 2:26-cv-00095-LEW Document 5 Filed 02/24/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
28 U.S.C. § 2243. Petitioner may file a reply within two days of Respondents’ response.
See id. 	No hearing will be held unless one is requested and unless circumstances then
existing warrant a hearing. In the absence of a hearing, the Court will promptly determine
the matter based on the petition, return and response, any reply that may be filed, and
documents of record.
The Emergency Order Concerning Stay of Transfer or Removal (ECF No. 3) is
VACATED. However, Respondents are ORDERED to give Petitioner’s counsel 48-hour
notice prior to arresting Petitioner.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 24th day of February, 2026.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 2:26-cv-00095-LEW Document 5 Filed 02/24/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:
<pageID>