United States District Court, W.D. Texas, El Paso Division
HENRY ULIOMEREYON JONES, Reg. No. 46810-112, Petitioner,
WARDEN BERGAMI; ICE, El Paso & West Texas, D. CHEADLE, ICE, Los Angeles Deportation Proceedings, Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
BRIONES, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Henry Uliomereyon Jones asks the Court to intervene in his
behalf and order Respondent Warden Bergami to consider him
for placement in a halfway house or residential reentry
center (RRC) for the maximum permissible amount of time
before his release from custody. Pet'r's Pet. 9, ECF
No. 1. Jones explains Warden Bergami has already denied his
request for RRC placement based on an Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) detainer. Id., at 1. After due
consideration, the Court will deny Jones' "Petition
for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241" because it appears from its face that his claims
are unexhausted and, in the alternative, that he is not
entitled to § 2241 relief.
September 27, 2007, a federal grand jury sitting in the
Central District of California returned a 33-count indictment
in cause number 07-CR-1075-PA charging Jones and two others
with mail fraud, wire fraud, securities fraud, contempt,
witness tampering, and unlawful monetary transactions. The
charges arose from a four-year scheme by Jones and his
co-defendants to defraud investors they had solicited to
participate in a coal mining venture and the sale of 20, 000
tons of gold between Israel and the United Arab Emirates.
was extradited from Hong Kong and arrived in the United
States for his initial appearance on December 13, 2007. Trial
began on June 24, 2008, and ended on July 11, 2008, when the
jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts. On April 3,
2009, the trial court sentenced Jones to 240 months'
imprisonment in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
followed by three years' supervised release. The court
also ordered Jones to pay a $1, 800 special assessment and
restitution in the amount of $28, 058, 310. The Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction. United States
v. Jennings, 434 Fed.Appx. 670, 673 (9th Cir. 2011).
is currently confined at the La Tuna Federal Correctional
Institution in Anthony, Texas. His projected release date is
February 18, 2025. Pet'r's Pet., Ex. 1.
claims that Warden Bergami abused his discretion when he
denied Jones RRC placement. Id., at 3. He also
maintains that his status as a legal permanent resident of
the United States makes him eligible for cancellation of
removal. Id., at 4. He suggests that the Court
"can invoke its plenary power to correct the egregious
exercise of ICE and BOP power that is so capricious as to
violate the constitution ..." Id. He also asks
that the Court ignore the ICE detainer and "ORDER the
BOP in good faith to consider on an individualized basis,
using the five factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. Secon [sic]
3621(b) plus take into account the language in 18 U.S.C.
Section 3624(c)(6)(C) [and grant] him the maximum amount of
time in the RRC to provide the greatest likelihood of [his]
successful reintegration into the Community."
Id., at 9 (quotations and citations omitted).
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 provides the
proper procedural vehicle for a prisoner to attack "the
manner in which a sentence is executed." Tolliver v.
Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 2000). "[T]he
proper respondent to a habeas petition is 'the person who
has custody over [the petitioner].'" Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004) (quoting 28 U.S.C.
§ 2242). "Habeas corpus relief is extraordinary and
'is reserved for transgressions of constitutional rights
and for a narrow range of injuries that... if condoned,
result in a complete miscarriage of justice.'"
Kinder v. Purdy, 222 F.3d 209, 213 (5th Cir. 2000)
(quoting United States v. Vaughn, 955 F.2d 367, 368
(5th Cir. 1992)). Hence, a habeas corpus petitioner must show
that he is "in custody in violation of the Constitution
or laws or treaties of the United States" to obtain
relief. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c) (2012).
its initial screening of a habeas corpus petition, a
reviewing court must accept the petitioner's allegations
as true. 28 U.S.C. § 2243; Bell Atlantic Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-56 (2007). It must also
evaluate a petition presented by pro se petitioner under more
a lenient standard than it would apply to a petition
submitted by counsel. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.
89, 94 (2007). It must "award the writ or issue an order
directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should
not be granted, unless it plainly appears from the petition
and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled
to relief." Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254
Cases in the United States District Courts (applicable to
§ 2241 petitions pursuant to Rule 1(b)).
concedes he has not exhausted his administrative remedies
through the BOP's administrative review process.
Pet'r's Pet. 7, ECF No. 1. He argues the Court should
excuse this omission "due to futility."
petitioner seeking § 2241 habeas relief must first
exhaust all administrative remedies which might provide
appropriate relief before seeking judicial review. Fuller
v. Rich,11 F.3d 61, 62 (5th Cir. 1994) (per curiam);
Rourke v. Thompson,11 F.3d 47, 49 (5th Cir. 1993).
Exhaustion means "proper exhaustion," including
compliance with all administrative deadlines and procedures.