Order – Page 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

IVOR JALLAH, §

 §

Petitioner, §

 §

v. § Civil Action No. 3:22-CV-2449-L-BH

 § Criminal No. 3:21-CR-380-L

C. RIVERS, §

 §

Respondent. §

ORDER 

On December 1, 2022, the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United 

States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) (Doc. 5) was entered, recommending that the court deny 

Petitioner’s habeas corpus challenge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, to his pretrial detention (Doc. 

3) for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies. The Report reasons that Petitioner has 

adequate remedies available to him in his pending criminal case to challenge his pretrial detention

of which he has yet to avail himself. In addition, the Report reasons that § 2241 is not a substitute 

for ordinary trial court proceedings in a criminal case, and no exceptional circumstances exist to 

warrant such relief. 

Defendant filed objections to the Report (Doc. 6), contending that: (1) dismissal is 

inconsistent with 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c); (2) his failure to exhaust is attributable to the refusal of 

his two attorneys to appeal and exhaust administrative remedies in his criminal case; (3) the 

appropriate remedy by a person in custody is a habeas corpus petition because criminal defendants 

cannot file appeals independently without counsel; and (4) his ability to gather evidence, contact 

witnesses, and prepare his defense has been hindered as a result of his being detained, even though 

he has not been convicted of anything yet.

Case 3:22-cv-02449-L-BH Document 9 Filed 01/19/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 41
Order – Page 2

As correctly noted by the magistrate judge, Petitioner has adequate available remedies in 

his criminal case to challenge his pretrial detention that he has not yet pursued. The court, 

therefore, agrees that this section 2241 habeas action should be dismissed for the reasons stated in 

the Report. Petitioner also recently retained new counsel in his criminal case. This appears to 

moot any complaints about his prior attorneys, as well as Petitioner’s assertion about preparing his 

defense, which can be done by his newly retained attorney. Further, 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c) is not 

relevant here because the magistrate judge recommended that Petitioner’s habeas petition and 

challenge to his pretrial detention be denied for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Section

1997e(c), on the other hand, governs dismissal of frivolous prisoner suits and provides for the 

dismissal of such suits and claims in certain circumstances without first requiring the exhaustion 

of administrative remedies. Petitioner’s objections are, therefore, overruled.

Having considered the habeas petition (Doc. 3), pleadings, file, record in this case, and 

Report, and having conducted a de novo review of that portion of the Report to which objection 

was made, the court determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are 

correct, and accepts them as those of the court. Accordingly, the court denies Petition for a Writ 

of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. 3) and dismisses without prejudice this habeas 

action for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.

A certificate of appealability is not required to appeal the denial of relief under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241. See Padilla v. United States, 416 F. 424, 425 (5th Cir. 2005). If Petitioner files a notice 

of appeal, he must pay the $505 appellate filing fee or submit a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis and a properly signed certificate of inmate trust account.

Case 3:22-cv-02449-L-BH Document 9 Filed 01/19/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 42
Order – Page 3

It is so ordered this 19th day of January, 2023.

_________________________________

Sam A. Lindsay

United States District Judge

Case 3:22-cv-02449-L-BH Document 9 Filed 01/19/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 43