Opinion
C. A. 5:23-4258-SAL-KDW
09-25-2023
Antonio Zaldivar Iglesias, Petitioner, v. Bureau of Prisons; Immigrations and Customs Enforcement; and Warden M. Graham, Respondents.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAYMANI D. WEST UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Antonio Zaldivar Iglesias (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed this Petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging a detainer that was placed on him and seeking release to a halfway house. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such petitions for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the Petition in this case without prejudice.
I. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Under established local procedure in this judicial district, a careful review has been made of this petition pursuant to the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings for the United States District Court, the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), Pub. L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214, and other habeas corpus statutes. Pro se complaints are held to a less-stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of N.Y., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleading to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990).
The Rules Governing Section 2254 are applicable to habeas actions brought under § 2241. See Rule 1(b).
B. Analysis
Petitioner challenges a detainer placed on him on March 1, 2023, arguing the detainer violates his constitutional rights. ECF No. 1; ECF No. 1-4. Plaintiff claims the detainer is preventing him from earning time credits under the First Step Act and from being moved to a halfway house under the Elderly Offender Act. Id.
A writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 functions to grant relief when an inmate's current custody is in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Petitioner is presently in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons serving a sentence imposed on January 21, 2015 in the United States District Court, Western District of Oklahoma. ECF No. 1 at 1. Petitioner, however, challenges a detainer placed on him by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) although Petitioner is not currently in the custody of ICE. As Petitioner is not challenging his present conviction or sentence, Petitioner cannot satisfy the “in custody” requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Zamarripa-Torres v. Bureau of Immigr. & Customs Enf't, 347 Fed.Appx. 47, 48 (5th Cir. 2009) (explaining that the issuance of a detainer did not place the petitioner “in custody” for the purposes of challenging the detainer under § 2241); Aritola v. Patton, No. 07-CV-78, 2007 WL 2965071, at *4 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 9, 2007) (“The law is well settled that a prisoner must wait until he comes into the custody of the INS or ICE authorities to challenge its detention, as even an immigration detainer or other prerelease notice from immigration authorities does not confer custody to the INS.”); Garcia-Echaverria v. United States, 376 F.3d 507, 510-11 (6th Cir.2004) (explaining that an alien who is confined pursuant to a criminal conviction is not in ICE custody simply because ICE has lodged a detainer against him with the prison where he is incarcerated). Because this court lack jurisdiction to consider Petitioner's claims, the undesigned recommends Petitioner's § 2241 Petition be summarily dismissed.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the district judge dismiss the Petition in the above-captioned matter without prejudice.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. [][I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must []only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.[][] Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed. R Civ. P. 72 advisory committee[]s note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. [] 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 2317
Florence, South Carolina 29503
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. [] 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).