The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN JONES III, District Judge
Jorge Porte ("Petitioner" or "Porte"), an inmate confined at
the Allenwood Federal Correctional Institution, in White Deer,
Pennsylvania ("FCI-Allenwood"), filed this pro se Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("the Petition") (doc. 1) pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2241. Named as Respondents are Bryan L. Miller and
the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE").
Service of the Petition was previously ordered.
Petitioner states that he is a native of Cuba who entered the
United States during the 1990 Mariel boatlift. Porte indicates
that he filed an application to become a lawful permanent
resident in 1985. However, his application was allegedly
terminated on January 7, 1987.
Petitioner subsequently pled guilty to drug related charges
before our colleague, United States District Judge William
Caldwell of the Middle District of Pennsylvania. On June 21,
1990, he was sentenced to a 240 month term of incarceration.
Porte is presently serving that sentence at FCI-Allenwood. On
February 25, 2004, the ICE lodged a detainer against the
Petitioner with the Federal Bureau of Prisons ("BOP"). In his present action, Porte challenges the legality of the ICE
detainer. Specifically, his Petition contends that the detainer
should be vacated because his application to become a lawful
permanent resident was improperly terminated. Petitioner adds
that the imposition of the detainer violates his Fifth Amendment
due process rights because it has impeded his eligibility for
institutional programs and pre-release halfway house placement.
Respondents argue that Porte is not entitled to federal habeas
corpus relief because he does not satisfy the in custody
requirement of § 2241. Their response maintains that since the
Petitioner will remain in BOP custody until August, 2007 and the
detainer does not subject him to ICE custody, this Court lacks
jurisdiction over his present claim.
The ICE detainer issued to Porte notified him that an
investigation had been commenced to determine whether he was
removable from the United States. (See Rec. Doc. 7, Ex. D). It
specifically advises prison officials that it is issued solely
for notification purposes and does not "limit your discretion in
any decision affecting the offender's classification, work, and
quarters assignments, or other treatment which he or she would
otherwise receive." Id. The detainer additionally requests only
that prison officials provide ICE with advance notice of Porte's
release so that they could assume custody of Petitioner.
It is initially noted that there is no claim by Petitioner that
his present federal incarceration is the result of the ICE
detainer. Under 8 C.F.R. § 239.1(a), removal proceedings do not
commence upon the filing of a detainer at the prison where the
alien is incarcerated, but rather with the filing of a notice to
appear before an Immigration Judge. Pri-Har v. Reno, Civil No.
1:CV-00-1635 slip op. at 4 (M.D. Pa. June 5, 2001) (Caldwell,
J.). The presence of an ICE detainer also does not affect Porte's status as a sentenced federal offender. Rather, "it
merely notifies prison officials that a decision regarding his
deportation will be made . . . at some future date. Campillo v.
Sullivan, 853 F.2d 593, 595 (8th Cir. 1988); Then v.
Colleran, Civil No. 1:CV-99-967, slip op. at 2 (M.D. Pa. July,
1999) (Rambo, J.).
A petitioner may not challenge an immigration detainer by
filing a § 2241 petition "absent actual custody" by ICE. Garcia
v. INS, 733 F. Supp. 1554 (M.D. Pa. 1990). More recent decisions
have similarly held that a petitioner has no right to compel
immediate resolution of a pending ICE detainer. Escobsar v. U.S.
Dept. Of Justice, 2005 WL 1060635 (E.D. Pa. May 5, 2005);
Burgos v. Derosa, 2005 WL 2205814 (D.N.J. Sept. 8, 2005). In
Escobar, the district court also noted that the lodging of an
immigration detainer does not satisfy the in custody requirement
of § 2241. Escobar, 2005 WL 1060635 * 2. This Court agrees that
the mere filing of the ICE detainer does not establish that
removal proceedings have commenced. Furthermore, since it is
undisputed that Porte is presently serving his federal criminal
sentence and is not in actual ICE custody, he does not satisfy §
2241's in custody requirement. Thus, under the standards
announced in and Garcia, Escobar, and Burgos, Porte's
present § 2241 action is premature and subject to dismissal.
In Burgos, it was additionally recognized that a habeas
petitioner is not entitled to relief with respect to a claim that
an ICE detainer caused a limitation on his prison activities.
Burgos, 2005 WL 2205814 at *6 (it is not unreasonable for the
BOP to take into account an ICE detainer in determining any
aspect of a prisoner's placement or program participation).
Accordingly, there is also no basis for federal habeas corpus
relief with respect to Petitioner's claim that the presence of
the ICE detainer has impeded his eligibility for institutional
and pre-release programming. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (doc. 1) is
dismissed without ...