United States District Court

for the

Southern District of Florida

Jean A. Thomas, Plaintiff,

v.

Immigration Custom Enforcement, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

Civil Action No. 20-22388-Civ-Scola

Order of Dismissal

This matter is before the Court on an independent review of the record. 

For the reasons set forth below, the Court dismisses the Petitioner Jean 

Thomas’s § 2241 petition (ECF No. 1) as premature.

1. Relevant Factual Background

Thomas is prisoner, confined at the Walton Correctional Institution. He 

filed a pro se Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus. 

(ECF No. 1.) In his Petition, which Thomas calls a “Motion to Compel,” he seeks 

an order compelling the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) to address the nature of his immigration hold. 

(ECF No. 1 at 1). Thomas alleges that in December 2018, he was sentenced to a 

three-year term of imprisonment in the Florida Department of Corrections. (Id.)

At the time of his conviction, he was a United States citizen with a valid Florida 

Driver’s License. (Id.) Upon entering the Florida Department of Corrections, 

Thomas learned that ICE has an “illegal detainer on him.” (Id. at 2.) Thomas

asserts that there is no basis for this hold, that it will “unduly extend his 

incarceration upon release,” and that this is a form of “pre-designed 

kidnapping/false imprisonment.” (Id.) As relief, Petitioner request that removal 

of “any holds or detainers in place against him.” (Id.)

2. Discussion

Liberally construing his Petition, it appears Thomas has brought this 

action under § 2241, as he seeks to challenge the lawfulness of his immigration 

detainer. However, § 2241 only provides a petitioner an avenue to challenge his 

custody “alleged to be in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United 

States.” § 2241(c)(3). “[A]bsent custody by the authority against whom relief is 

sought, jurisdiction will not lie to grant the writ.” Gonzalez-Corrales v. I.C.E., 522 

F. App’x 619, 623 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Orozco v. U.S. I.N.S., 911 F.2d 539, 541 

(11th Cir. 1990)). 

Case 1:20-cv-22388-RNS Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 1 of 3
2

Here, Thomas cannot satisfy the “in custody” requirement of § 2241 

because he is not currently in the custody of ICE. See Patel v. Att’y Gen., 334 

F.3d 1259, 1263 (11th Cir. 2003) (holding that habeas jurisdiction requires that 

the petitioner be in “custody” and that “custody” is determined as of the time of

the filing of the petition). The pendency of an immigration detainer does not 

satisfy the “in custody” requirement for purposes of habeas relief, because such 

a detainer does not affect the prisoner’s status as a sentenced state or federal 

offender. The detainer is merely a notice that future immigration custody may 

be sought, and that a decision regarding the arrest and removal of the alien will 

be made by immigration authorities at some later date. 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(a); Louis 

v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 524 F. App’x 583, 584 (11th Cir. 2013) (citing Orozco, 

911 F.2d at 541)). Thus, a detainer filed by ICE, standing alone, does not cause 

a convicted felon to come within the custody of the Department of Homeland

Security for purposes of habeas corpus relief. Accordingly, Thomas may not 

challenge the detainer by way of habeas corpus until he is placed in ICE custody. 

Therefore, the instant § 2241 petition is premature. 

Moreover, to the extent that this action is construed as a non-habeas civil 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,1 Thomas does not allege sufficient facts to 

establish any cognizable § 1983 claim regarding a violation of his constitutional 

rights. 

3. Conclusion

In sum, the Court dismisses Thomas’s § 2241 (ECF No. 1) without 

prejudice as premature. The Court directs the Clerk to close this case and mail

this order to the address listed below. Any pending motions are denied as moot.

Done and ordered at Miami, Florida, on August 6, 2020.

________________________________

Robert N. Scola, Jr.

United States District Judge

 

1 See United States v. Jordan, 915 F.2d 622, 624-25 (11th Cir. 1990) 

(“Federal courts have . . . have an obligation to look behind the label of a motion 

filed by a pro se inmate . . ..”).

Case 1:20-cv-22388-RNS Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 2 of 3
3

cc: Jean A. Thomas

A60243 

Walton Correctional Institution 

Inmate Mail/Parcels 

691 Institution Road 

De Funiak Springs, FL 32433 

PRO SE

Case 1:20-cv-22388-RNS Document 6 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/07/2020 Page 3 of 3