IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

 DALLAS DIVISION 

IVOR JALLAH, ) 

 #19460509 ) 

Petitioner, ) 

vs. ) No. 3:22-CV-2449-L (BH) 

 ) No. 3:21-CR-380-L 

 ) 

C. RIVERS, ) 

 Respondent. ) Referred to U.S. Magistrate Judge1

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION

 Based on the relevant filings and applicable law, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, received on November 2, 2022 (doc. 3), should be DISMISSED for 

failure to exhaust available remedies. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Ivor Jallah (Petitioner), a federal pretrial detainee at the Federal Correctional Institution in 

Seagoville, Texas (FCI Seagoville), filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 

2241 in which he challenges his pretrial detention in United States v. Jallah, No. 3:21-CR-380-L 

(N.D. Tex.). (See doc. 3 at 2.)2

 He names the warden of FCI Seagoville as the respondent. (See 

id. at 1.) 

On July 19, 2021, Petitioner was charged by criminal complaint with making a false 

statement in purchase of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6). (See No. 3:21-CR-380-

L, doc. 1.) On July 23, 2021, he was ordered detained pending trial.3

 (See id., doc. 7.) On August 

1 By Special Order No. 3-251, this habeas case has been automatically referred for full case management. 

2

 Citations to the record refer to the CM/ECF system page number at the top of each page rather than the page numbers 

at the bottom of each filing. 

3

 Petitioner’s pre-trial release in a separate criminal case against him was revoked the same day. (See No. 3:20-CR576-L(2), doc. 60.) 

Case 3:22-cv-02449-L-BH Document 5 Filed 12/01/22 Page 1 of 5 PageID 25
2 

17, 2021, he was charged by indictment with one count of false statement in purchase of a firearm 

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(6) and 924(a)(2). (See id., doc. 11.) Petitioner’s motion for 

reconsideration of the detention order, filed on March 28, 2022, was denied on April 15, 2022. 

(See id., docs. 29, 32.) His trial is currently scheduled for December 12, 2022, although he has 

filed a motion for a continuance. (See id., docs. 47-48.) 

The § 2241 petition asserts the following grounds for relief: 

(1) [Petitioner] respectfully moves the court to dismiss this case at hand on the 

grounds of the recently overturned conviction of U.S. v. Jose Gomez Quiroz

case no. 422-Cr-00104-DC, where the defendant Quiroz attempted to purchase 

a firearm while under felony indictment by making a false statement on his gun 

application. . . .; 

(2) The court had numerous opportunities to order [Petitioner] to surrender all and 

any firearms but failed to, as well as failed to advise [Petitioner] a [sic] loss of 

privileges to own or posses [sic] any firearms. . . .; and 

(3) The court’s decision to continue to detain [Petitioner] pre-trial and revoke his 

bond due for a non-capital & non-violent underlying healthcare fraud charge is 

unconstitutional . . . . 

(doc. 3 at 9-10.) Petitioner seeks dismissal of the underlying criminal case and immediate release. 

(See id. at 7.) 

II. EXHAUSTION 

Although habeas corpus is an appropriate remedy for an individual in custody in violation 

of the Constitution, district courts should withhold granting relief in habeas actions “where an 

adequate remedy available in the criminal proceeding has not been exhausted.” Stack v. Boyle,

342 U.S. 1, 6 (1951) (citations omitted). “[I]n the absence of exceptional circumstances in criminal 

cases the regular judicial procedure should be followed and habeas corpus should not be granted 

in advance of a trial.” Jones v. Perkins, 245 U.S. 390, 391 (1918) (citations omitted). 

Case 3:22-cv-02449-L-BH Document 5 Filed 12/01/22 Page 2 of 5 PageID 26
3 

Here, Petitioner has adequate remedies available in the underlying criminal case. He may 

challenge the order of pretrial detention in his criminal case under 18 U.S.C. § 3145. Section 

3145(b) provides that a person ordered detained by a magistrate judge may file a motion for 

revocation or amendment of the detention order. 18 U.S.C. § 3145(b). If the district judge denies 

the motion for revocation or amendment of the detention order, the detainee may appeal the 

decision to the Fifth Circuit, as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 3145(c) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. While the 

Fifth Circuit has declined to find that § 3145 is the exclusive means for a federal prisoner to 

challenge a pretrial detention order, it has expressly made clear that § 3145 is the preferred and 

appropriate means for doing so. Fassler v. United States, 858 F.2d 1016, 1017-19 (5th Cir. 1988). 

Although Petitioner has previously sought review of the order of detention in the underlying 

criminal case by the district judge, he has not availed himself of the right to appeal to the Fifth 

Circuit after the denial of same. Nor has he availed himself of his right under § 3145 to appeal the 

detention order to the district judge and the Fifth Circuit based on the alleged grounds in his § 2241 

petition that were not raised previously. (See doc. 3 at 9-10.) 

Further, to the extent Petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the indictment in his 

pending federal prosecution, a “pre-trial writ of habeas corpus is only available to a defendant in 

extraordinary circumstances.” U.S. v. Bowler, 62 F.3d 397, 1995 WL 449713, *1 (5th Cir. 1995) 

(per curiam). In Bowler, after the district court denied their motion to dismiss the indictment 

against them, two pre-trial detainees filed a petition under § 2241 challenging it. Id. Noting “‘the 

settled principle that a writ of habeas corpus may not be used. . .as a substitute for the ordinary 

proceedings of a trial court[,]’” the Fifth Circuit found no “‘rare and exceptional’” circumstances 

warranting consideration of the pre-trial writ as a substitute for a direct appeal. Id. at *2 (citing 

United States v. Saegert, 251 F.2d 59 (5th Cir. 1957)). The court concluded that the petitioners’ 

Case 3:22-cv-02449-L-BH Document 5 Filed 12/01/22 Page 3 of 5 PageID 27
4 

arguments should be “presented and reached ‘in the orderly administration of justice.’”4 Id.; see 

also Bailey v. Cruz, No. 3:11-CV-1712-K (N.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2011) (dismissing a § 2241 petition 

filed by a federal pretrial detainee for failing to exhaust his remedies with respect to his speedy 

trial and conspiracy claims). Here, Petitioner has not challenged his indictment in the underlying 

criminal case, where he is represented by appointed counsel, and § 2241 does not provide him an 

avenue to preempt the ongoing criminal proceedings. 

Accordingly, Petitioner should be required to fully exhaust the remedies available to him 

in his pending criminal case, and his challenge under §2241 to his pretrial detention and 

prosecution should be dismissed. 

III. RECOMMENDATION 

The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, received on November 

2, 2022 (doc. 3), should be DISMISSED for failure to exhaust available remedies. 

SIGNED this 1st day of December, 2022. 

4

 Other circuits have likewise dismissed § 2241 petitions raising claims or defenses to pending federal prosecutions in 

favor of the pending criminal case. See, e.g., Williams v. Hackman, 364 F. App’x 268 (7th Cir. 2010) (holding that 

“a federal pretrial detainee cannot use § 2241 to preempt the judge presiding over the criminal case.”) (citing Jones

and Fassler); In re Williams, 306 F. App’x 818 (4th Cir. 2009) (dismissing § 2241 petition and noting that claims of 

illegal arrest, unlawful detention, and violation of speedy trial rights could be raised in the pending criminal case); 

Chandler v. Pratt, 96 F. App’x 661 (10th Cir. 2004) (affirming dismissal of § 2241 petition raising defective 

indictment and speedy trial act claims for failure to exhaust available remedies where claims should have been, and 

were being, pursued in criminal case because allowing claims would waste judicial resources and encourage judge 

shopping); Horning v. Seifart, 107 F.3d 11 (6th Cir. 1997) (Table) (finding that § 2241 cannot be invoked to raise 

defenses to a pending federal criminal prosecution) (citing Jones ). 

Case 3:22-cv-02449-L-BH Document 5 Filed 12/01/22 Page 4 of 5 PageID 28
5 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND 

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT 

 A copy of these findings, conclusions and recommendation shall be served on all parties in 

the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of these findings, conclusions and 

recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after being served with a 

copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). In order to be specific, an objection must 

identify the specific finding or recommendation to which objection is made, state the basis for the 

objection, and specify the place in the magistrate judge’s findings, conclusions and 

recommendation where the disputed determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates 

by reference or refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file 

specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings and 

legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted or adopted by the district court, except 

upon grounds of plain error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Automobile Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 

(5th Cir. 1996). 

Case 3:22-cv-02449-L-BH Document 5 Filed 12/01/22 Page 5 of 5 PageID 29