PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISION

________________________§§

Zoubir BOUCHIKHI,

Plaintiff

§§v.§§

Janet NAPOLITANO,

Case No. _______________________Secretary, U.S.

Department of Homeland Security

§§

and

Ken Landgrebe, Field Director

§U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,§Houston Office§§

Defendants

§________________________

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINALAPPLICATION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,AND FORTEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

COMES NOW Zoubir BOUCHIKHI, Plaintiff in the above-styled and numbered cause, andfor cause of action would show unto the Court the following:1.This is an action to challenge the unlawful and egregious order of detention entered againstPlaintiff by the Defendants in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”),regulations implemented pursuant to the INA, and the United States Constitution.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 2

PARTIES

2.Plaintiff is a 49 year old native and citizen of Algeria who has lived in the United States forthe past 11 years and serves as a religious leader to the Houston Islamic community. He hasa wife and son who are also Algerian nationals, and three younger children born in Houstonwho are therefore United States citizens. In December 2008, Plaintiff was arrested at hishome in Houston by agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”). He hasbeen held in ICE custody since.3.Defendant Janet Napolitano is Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”),and this action is brought against her in her official capacity. She is generally charged withadministration and enforcement of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), and isfurther authorized to delegate such powers and authority to subordinate employees of herDepartment.

See,

8 USC §1103. Both CIS and ICE are component agencies within theDHS.4.Defendant Kenneth Landgrebe is the Houston Field Office Director of Immigration andCustoms Enforcement, an official of the ICE generally charged with supervisory authorityover all operations of the agency within his District. Mr. Landgrebe and his subordinates arethe custodians in whose custody Plaintiff is unlawfully held.

JURISDICTION

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT PAGE 3

5.Jurisdiction for this cause of action in this Court is proper under 28 USC §2241(c), in thatPlaintiff is in the Defendants’ custody under or by color of the authority of the United States,and in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States, as more fully set forth below.

Requena-Rodriguez v. Pasquarell,

190 F3d 299 (5th Cir. 1999);

INS v. St. Cyr,

121 S.Ct.2271 (2001),

Shokeh v. Thompson,

369 F.3d 865 (5th Cir. 2004).6.Jurisdiction is also conferred by 28 USC §1331, in that this is a civil action arising under theConstitution and laws of the United States.7.Authority to grant the requested injunctive relief in cases otherwise within the court's jurisdiction is conferred by 28 USC §2201(a).

VENUE

8.Venue is proper in this court, pursuant to 28 USC §1391(e), in that this is an action againstofficers and agencies of the United States in their official capacities, brought in the Districtwhere a Defendant resides and where a substantial part of the events or omissions giving riseto Plaintiff's claim occurred. Plaintiff is detained within this District, and administrativedecisions regarding his custody have largely been made within this District.

EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES

9.Plaintiff has exhausted his administrative remedies. As will be detailed below, Plaintiff andothers acting upon his behalf have made numerous requests for his release to Defendants.