Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00508/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00508-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 28:2241fd Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)

---

1

19cv508-WQH-WVG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEMETRIUS JERRELL, 

Petitioner,

v.

NEIL MCDOWELL,

Respondent.

Case No.: 19cv508-WQH-WVG

ORDER

HAYES, Judge:

On March 15, 2019, Petitioner Demetrius Jerrell filed a petition for writ of habeas 

corpus against Respondent Neil McDowell (ECF No. 1), and a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis (ECF No. 2). On March 22, 2019, the Court granted the motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3).

Petitioner states that he is currently in state custody. Petitioner brings claims based 

on a “[p]otential detainer . . . [b]y San Diego, Ca, agency [California Customs and Border 

Protection] 2900 CBP-OBP Station.” (ECF No. 1 at 2). Petitioner seeks relief pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 2241 on the grounds that “[a] federal detainer has been placed on Petitioner by 

the United States border patrol for transporting illegal immigrants on 1-25-15. However, 

Petitioner was incarcerated in the California Department of Corrections from 11-06-13 –

02-13-15.” Id. at 4. Petitioner claims that he is actually innocent of the crime that allegedly 

occurred while he was incarcerated, and that “[t]he detainer must be removed.” Id.

Case 3:19-cv-00508-WQH-WVG Document 4 Filed 04/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv508-WQH-WVG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

“Section 2241 embodies the traditional writ of habeas corpus, permitting an 

individual to challenge the legality of his custody . . .” Woods v. Carey, 525 F.3d 886, 889 

(9th Cir. 2008).

The federal habeas statute gives United States district courts jurisdiction over

petitions for habeas relief only from persons who are “in custody in violation 

of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 

2241(c)(3); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). We have interpreted the statutory 

language as requiring that the habeas petitioner be “in custody” under the 

conviction or sentence under attack at the time his petition is filed.

Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 488, 490–91 (1989) (emphasis added). “The text of the statute 

makes clear, and the Supreme Court has confirmed, that ‘custody’ is a jurisdictional 

prerequisite to habeas review under § 2241(c)(3).” Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 821 

(9th Cir. 2009)) (citing Hensley v. Mun. Court, 411 U.S. 345, 351 (1973)). 

To invoke § 2241 jurisdiction, a petitioner must allege that he is in custody in 

violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States and that he is a federal 

prisoner or “a state prisoner who is not in custody pursuant to a state court judgment—for 

example, a defendant in pre-trial detention or awaiting extradition.” White v. Lambert, 370 

F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 2004) (quotation omitted), overruled on other grounds by 

Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546 (9th Cir. 2010). To invoke § 2254 jurisdiction, a 

petitioner must allege that he is in custody pursuant to a state court judgment and that he 

intends to challenge the constitutional validity or duration of present confinement. See 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(a); Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 488–500 (1973). 

In this case, Petitioner indicates that he is in state custody pursuant to a state court 

judgment and is not a federal prisoner. The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s 

claims pursuant to § 2241. Petitioner challenges a “potential” “federal detainer” “[b]y San 

Diego Ca, agency CACBP.” See Campos v. I.N.S., 62 F.3d 311, 314 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[A] 

bare detainer letter alone does not sufficiently place an alien in INS custody to make habeas 

corpus available.”). Petitioner does not challenge the conviction for which he is currently 

Case 3:19-cv-00508-WQH-WVG Document 4 Filed 04/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv508-WQH-WVG

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in custody. The Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Petitioner’s claims pursuant to § 2254. 

The Court finds that the Petition must be dismissed. The Clerk is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 10, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00508-WQH-WVG Document 4 Filed 04/10/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3