Opinion ID: 3062951
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Detainer

Text: The DHS may issue detainers against aliens arrested for violating controlled substance laws and, if the detainer is issued and the alien is not otherwise in custody, the Attorney General is required expeditiously to take custody of the 4 We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252, 1260 (11th Cir. 2009). 5 alien. See INA § 287(d), 8 U.S.C. § 1357(d).5 “Under certain circumstances, challenges to detainers may . . . be brought under § 2241.” Orozco v. INS, 911 F.2d 539, 541 (11th Cir. 1990). However, “[t]he filing of [a] detainer, standing alone, [does] not cause [the petitioner] to come within the custody of the [DHS]” for purposes of § 2241 jurisdiction. Id. (affirming dismissal of alien’s § 2241 petition challenging immigration detainer where alien was incarcerated on state charges); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (requiring § 2241 petitioner to be “in custody” unless it is necessary to bring him into court to testify or for trial). Here, although Roberts’s complaint alleged that DHS lodged a detainer against her, it did not allege that Roberts was taken into DHS custody and that removal proceedings had commenced. In fact, Roberts alleged that she had not received a Notice to Appear and admitted in her filings that she is not in DHS custody. Under Orozco, the district court properly dismissed without prejudice Roberts’ § 2241 challenge to her immigration detainer.