Richwood Correctional Center: ICE Detention, Federal Habeas and Illegal-Reentry Defense

Identify the correct facility before anyone moves a case

Richwood Correctional Center is listed as an ICE detention location in Richwood / Monroe, Louisiana. Known search names include Richwood Detention Center, Monroe ICE Detention Center, RCC (Richwood). For an immediate custody inquiry, begin with the facility’s published contact: (318) 325-8409.

The ICE-listed street address is 180 Pine Bayou Circle, Richwood, LA 71202. Check visitation, mail delivery and any special legal-access procedure directly with the facility because the address for legal mail may differ from an administrative office or visiting entrance.

The Richwood facility is in Ouachita Parish in the Monroe area. “RCC” can also refer to River Correctional Center in Ferriday; those are separate facilities and must not be conflated in a habeas filing, phone call, or detainee search.

The ICE Online Detainee Locator can help establish where a person is held. A facility listing and an old detention statistic cannot prove a person is currently detained there. Confirm the A-number, transfer history and actual custodian rather than relying on a past booking or an agency field-office label.

ICE detention facilities directory · ICE Online Detainee Locator

Where does a federal detention challenge belong?

Ouachita Parish is in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana (Monroe Division). A core physical-custody habeas petition ordinarily begins with the immediate custodian and the district of actual confinement; transfers and the precise claim can alter the analysis.

28 U.S.C. § 2241 authorizes judicial review of federal custody that violates federal law or the Constitution. The petition must target the actual custodial issue and fit the court’s jurisdiction. A petition for review attacking a removal order ordinarily follows the separate immigration review channel in 8 U.S.C. § 1252.

We map the agency and detention record to the proper U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana forum before choosing an emergency request, habeas petition, administrative motion or another recognized vehicle. The facility name matters, but the governing custody statute and record matter more.

28 U.S.C. § 2241 · Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) · 28 U.S.C. § 98, Louisiana federal judicial districts

Challenge the actual detention authority, not a generic label

ICE custody is not one interchangeable category. Sections 1225(b), 1226(a), 1226(c) and 1231 address different situations, and the statute matters to bond authority, custody review, constitutional claims and federal remedies. We examine how the person entered, where they were arrested, the legal status of any removal order, and any criminal-history predicate.

The Fifth Circuit’s Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026), governs its interpretation of § 1225(b)(2)(A). On October 23, 2026, the en banc court in Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara reversed the district courts’ grants of mandatory bond hearings for the petitioners before it and vacated the earlier 90-day panel rule. A Louisiana petition must confront those binding holdings rather than rely on the vacated panel decision.

A prior habeas win from a Wisconsin court under Seventh Circuit precedent does not control a Louisiana federal judge. After the Fifth Circuit’s October 23 en banc decision, automatic bond on the vacated 90-day theory cannot be promised in Louisiana. Different statutory custody classifications and post-order claims must be researched on their own facts.

A legally supported claim may seek a corrected custody classification, an individualized hearing, release when the law authorizes it, or enforcement of a court order. Relief depends on the record and controlling law, not how a facility is marketed.

8 U.S.C. §§ 1225, 1226 and 1231 · Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi, 166 F.4th 494 (5th Cir. 2026) · Sosnava Rodriguez v. Vergara, Nos. 26-50183, 26-50219, 26-50221 (5th Cir. Oct. 23, 2026) (en banc)

When removal is not reasonably foreseeable

For custody after a final order, 8 U.S.C. § 1231 and Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001), require a different analysis. After six months, credible evidence that removal is not significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future can trigger a government obligation to rebut that showing. The statute also addresses failures to cooperate with removal.

The Supreme Court in Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. 573 (2022), rejected an automatic statutory bond hearing after six months. It did not erase the distinct Zadvydas inquiry into the reasonable foreseeability of removal. Obtain travel-document requests, consular responses, ICE custody reviews, third-country plans and documented attempts at repatriation.

A person confined at Richwood Correctional Center with a final order may have a different claim from a neighbor who is still litigating removability. A strong petition starts with that distinction.

8 U.S.C. § 1231 · Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) · Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, 596 U.S. 573 (2022)

Illegal entry and illegal reentry: a separate federal criminal case

8 U.S.C. § 1325 addresses specified improper-entry conduct. Section 1326 addresses entering, attempting to enter or being found in the United States after a qualifying removal or related prior event without the required permission. Neither offense follows automatically from being placed in civil ICE detention at this facility. A federal prosecutor must separately charge and prove the criminal case.

In a § 1326 case, counsel should test alienage, the actual prior removal or departure, the government’s proof of entry or being found here, consent to reapply, limitations, venue and the reliability of immigration records. A voluntary departure or administrative return must not be casually mislabeled as an executable removal order. Discovery of the A-file and hearing record can alter the entire defense.

A collateral attack on a valid prior removal order under § 1326(d) must address exhaustion of available administrative remedies, deprivation of judicial review and fundamental unfairness. United States v. Palomar-Santiago, 593 U.S. 321 (2021), requires all three; an ordinary failure-of-proof challenge to an offense element is analytically distinct.

Possible outcomes, when legally supported, include dismissal, suppression of evidence, acquittal, correction of an enhancement or a sentencing argument. None can be promised in advance. The criminal charging district, not automatically the detention site, controls the criminal proceeding.

8 U.S.C. §§ 1325 and 1326 · 8 U.S.C. § 1325 · United States v. Palomar-Santiago, 593 U.S. 321 (2021)

Get the record before the next transfer

For Richwood Correctional Center, start with the precise name, A-number if known, location confirmation, detention start date, transfer history, current charging instrument, bond ruling, removal-order posture and any immediate medical or family-access concern. Preserve every custody notice, court order and ICE response with its date.

Attorney legal visits and confidential communication require compliance with the facility’s current procedures; a facility phone number does not substitute for a consultation or a scheduled attorney appointment. Contact ICE or the facility to verify access before traveling. If a transfer is imminent, document the change and reassess the proper habeas respondent and court promptly.

A signed representation agreement follows conflict checks and scope discussions. We can assess federal immigration custody and, where independently agreed and authorized, federal criminal immigration defense. Immigration court, federal criminal court and federal habeas filings are separate tracks.

ICE Online Detainee Locator · ICE detention facilities directory · 28 U.S.C. § 2241

The next move: make the government prove the right premise

If a family member is held at Richwood Correctional Center, we can assess the custody record, applicable federal statute, court, litigation deadlines and evidence needed to pursue an available remedy. We start with the document or government assertion that is carrying the weight of detention.

Steel & Associates, A Professional Law Corporation is based at 2000 Belle Chasse Highway, Suite 200B, Gretna, Louisiana 70056. Our principal office is not located at the detention center. The attorney’s confirmed admissions and each court’s representation rules govern any appearance; a consultation alone does not establish representation.

28 U.S.C. § 2241