782 F.Supp.3d 306
E.D. Va.2025Background
- Damilola Adepoju, a lawful U.S. permanent resident, pled guilty in 2021 to wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money laundering, and was sentenced to 4 years in prison without supervised release.
- Adepoju accrued substantial time credits under the First Step Act (FSA) for participating in recidivism-reduction programs, making him eligible for release to a residential reentry center (RRC) in December 2024.
- In February 2024, ICE issued an immigration detainer against Adepoju, though no final removal order existed.
- Following a January 2025 DOJ memorandum stating noncitizens with active detainers should not be referred to prerelease custody even without a final removal order, Adepoju was rearrested in February 2025 and reincarcerated without notice or explanation.
- Adepoju filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his reincarceration, arguing it violated both the FSA and the Due Process Clause; defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Court Jurisdiction (Subject Matter) | FSA mandates apply; court can review BOP's statutory violations | BOP has plenary control over prisoner placement; FSA does not grant court authority | Court has subject matter jurisdiction under § 2241 for FSA time credit issues |
| Personal Jurisdiction (Post-transfer) | Jurisdiction proper at filing; later transfer doesn't divest jurisdiction | Venue lost after transfer outside district | Court retains jurisdiction post-transfer if it had it at filing |
| Administrative Exhaustion Requirement | Should be waived due to irreparable harm and futility | Exhaustion is required before § 2241 petition | Exhaustion waived due to exceptional circumstances |
| FSA Violation (Reincarceration of Eligible Noncitizens) | FSA mandates prerelease custody unless subject to final removal order, which Adepoju is not | DOJ memo allows exclusion of all noncitizens with detainers from prerelease, even without final order | BOP's reincarceration of Adepoju violated the FSA; DOJ memo conflicts with statute |
| Due Process Violation | Reincarceration without notice deprives protected liberty interest granted by FSA and without due process | No protected interest; removal from RRC is within prison discretion | Reincarceration without notice/explanation violates due process |
Key Cases Cited
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (jurisdiction for habeas lies in district of confinement at filing; later transfers don't oust jurisdiction)
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (liberty interest may arise from law or policy using mandatory language for restrictive prison conditions)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (due process applies to prisoners facing deprivation of liberty)
- Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (no constitutional liberty interest in prison placement absent statute or regulation creating such interest)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (prisoner must show atypical and significant hardship for liberty interest under due process)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard for facial plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6))
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (facial plausibility required for complaint to survive motion to dismiss)
- Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 887 F.3d 637 (standard for motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction)