Court Opinion

ID: 9918365
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-12 19:00:28.587537+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:42.883491
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-50430     Document: 00517031493          Page: 1     Date Filed: 01/12/2024

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit                                 United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                  Fifth Circuit

                                 ____________                                   FILED
                                                                          January 12, 2024
                                  No. 23-50430                             Lyle W. Cayce
                                 ____________                                   Clerk

   Carlos Ruben Zuniga,

                                                            Petitioner—Appellant,

                                       versus

   United States of America; Department of Homeland
   Security; Border Patrol Agents,

                                           Respondents—Appellees.
                  ______________________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Western District of Texas
                            USDC No. 2:22-CV-56
                  ______________________________

   Before Jones, Haynes, and Douglas, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          While awaiting trial for illegal reentry, Carlos Ruben Zuniga filed a
   petition for writ habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in which he sought
   release from detention and reinstatement of his status as lawful permanent
   resident. The district court sua sponte dismissed Zuniga’s petition for failure

          _____________________
          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this
   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited
   circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 23-50430      Document: 00517031493           Page: 2   Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                     No. 23-50430

   to exhaust after concluding that he could raise his claims in his pending
   criminal case. Zuniga appealed.
          Zuniga contended in his § 2241 petition that (1) his removal order was
   invalid under Pereira v. Sessions, 138 S. Ct. 2105 (2018), because the notice to
   appear that the government served on him before his removal proceeding did
   not contain the time and place of the proceeding, and (2) the border patrol
   agent who arrested him failed to take him before a magistrate judge without
   unnecessary delay. The additional claims that Zuniga raises for the first time
   on appeal will not be addressed. See Page v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 651 F.2d
   1083, 1087 (5th Cir. 1981).
          The district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Zuniga’s
   second claim on non-jurisdictional grounds for failure to exhaust. Although
   the text of § 2241 does not require exhaustion, this court has recognized that
   “a federal prisoner filing a § 2241 petition must first pursue all available
   administrative remedies.” Gallegos-Hernandez v. United States, 688 F.3d
   190, 194 (5th Cir. 2012). Zuniga failed to exhaust with respect to his second
   claim because he could pursue a remedy in his pending criminal case. See also
   United States v. Bowler, 62 F.3d 397, 1995 WL 449713, at *2 (5th Cir. 1995)
   (“[H]abeas corpus may not be used . . . as a substitute for the ordinary
   proceedings of a trial court.” (citation omitted)).
          Insofar as his first claim was available as a defense to criminal
   prosecution, Zuniga should have pursued that claim in his criminal case as
   well. The district court, however, had no jurisdiction to address Zuniga’s
   first claim. The REAL ID Act “divest[s] federal courts of jurisdiction over
   § 2241 petitions attacking removal orders.” Rosales v. Bureau of Immigr. &
   Customs Enf’t, 426 F.3d 733, 736 (5th Cir. 2005). Zuniga’s first claim attacks
   his removal order as invalid under Pereira. The district court therefore

                                              2
Case: 23-50430      Document: 00517031493           Page: 3    Date Filed: 01/12/2024

                                     No. 23-50430

   should have dismissed that claim for lack of jurisdiction rather than for failure
   to exhaust.
          The district court’s dismissal of Zuniga’s first claim is modified to be
   one of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. In addition, dismissal of both claims
   is without prejudice. See Dawson Farms, LLC v. Farm Serv. Agency, 504 F.3d
   592, 601, 607 (5th Cir. 2007); Carver v. Atwood, 18 F.4th 494, 498 (5th Cir.
   2021). As modified, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

                                              3