United States District Court, D. New Jersey
MANUEL E. PEREZ-GUERRERO, Petitioner,
C. RAY HUGES, NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION DHS, Respondents.
E. Perez-Guerrero Plaintiff Pro se.
L. HILLMAN, U.S. District Judge.
Manuel E. Perez-Guerrero, a prisoner presently incarcerated
at Southern State Correctional Facility in Delmont, New
Jersey, brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
to challenge his immigration hold/detainer. ECF No. 1. For
the reasons that follow, the Petition will be dismissed
filed the Petition and paid the requisite $5.00 filing fee on
January 25, 2018. ECF No. 1. In the Petition, Petitioner
explains that he is presently serving a state sentence
imposed by the Superior Court of New Jersey on June 24,
2016. ECF No. 1, Pet. at 1. He also states that
an immigration hold has been lodged against him. See
id. The Petitioner seeks to challenge his immigration
hold/detainer, which he believes is denying him his Sixth
Amendment right to due process and effectively submits him to
cruel and unusual punishment, presumably in violation of the
Eighth Amendment. See id. at 6, 7. The Petitioner
seeks the following relief from the Court: “Remove
Immigration Hold/Detainer and proceed with any and all legal
actions proposed. To cease delay and to Protect
Applicant[']s Rights of Due Process and Equal
Protection.” Id. at 8.
“Habeas corpus petitions must meet heightened pleading
requirements.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S.
849, 856 (1994). Although the petitions of pro se
litigants are held to less stringent standards than those
pleadings drafted by lawyers, see Rainey v. Varner,
603 F.3d 189, 198 (3d Cir. 2010), the habeas petition must
“specify all the grounds for relief available to the
petitioner, “state the facts supporting each ground,
” “state the relief requested, ” be
printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten, and be signed
under penalty of perjury. 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 2(c)
(applicable to § 2241 petitions pursuant to Rule 1(b)).
Rule 4 requires a judge to sua sponte dismiss a
habeas petition without ordering a responsive pleading
“[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to
relief in the district court.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
Rule 4 (applicable to § 2241 petitions through Rule
1(b)). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (“A
court . . . shall forthwith . . . issue an order directing
the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be
granted, unless it appears from the application that the
applicant . . . is not entitled thereto.”). “[A]
district court is authorized to dismiss a [habeas] petition
summarily when it plainly appears from the face of the
petition and any exhibits annexed to it that the petitioner
is not entitled to relief in the district court.”
Lonchar v. Thomas, 517 U.S. 314, 320 (1996). See
McFarland, 512 U.S. at 856 (“Federal courts are
authorized to dismiss summarily any habeas petition that
appears legally insufficient on its face.”).
Petition must be summarily dismissed without prejudice
because Petitioner has failed to allege the ”in
custody” jurisdictional requirement of § 2241
habeas petitions. In order to obtain habeas jurisdiction, the
Petitioner must allege that he is “in custody”
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3):
The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner
. . .
He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.
28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The district court only has
subject-matter jurisdiction under § 2241(c)(3) if both
the “in custody” and “in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States”
requirements are met. Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488,
490 (1989). “Custody is measured as of the time that