Garcia-Maldonado v. Laughlin
3:17-cv-00040
S.D. Ga.Aug 21, 2017Background
- Petitioner Agustin Garcia-Maldonado is a state inmate serving a 30-year sentence for methamphetamine trafficking with a projected release date in 2033.
- He filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging a DHS immigration detainer lodged against him and sought immediate release for return to Mexico.
- Petitioner alleged Fourteenth Amendment due process violations from being held by a state agency and a Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel claim regarding the immigration hold.
- The district court ordered Petitioner to pay a $5 filing fee or move to proceed in forma pauperis within 21 days; Petitioner failed to comply.
- The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal, finding (1) dismissal appropriate for failure to comply with the court’s order and (2) lack of § 2241 jurisdiction because Petitioner remains in state custody, not DHS custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the petition should be dismissed for failure to comply with court's filing/IFP order | Garcia-Maldonado did not respond to the order but sought relief on the merits | Court asserted authority to dismiss for failure to prosecute/comply with orders | Dismissal is appropriate (failure to pay or move to proceed IFP) |
| Whether § 2241 provides habeas jurisdiction to challenge a DHS detainer while petitioner remains in state custody | Petitioner claims he is in "immigration custody" and challenges the detainer under § 2241 | Warden/Respondent argues petitioner remains in state DOC custody and not in DHS custody, so § 2241 relief cannot be granted | Lack of jurisdiction under § 2241 because petitioner is not in DHS custody; detainer alone is insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Equity Lifestyle Props., Inc. v. Fla. Mowing & Landscape Serv., Inc., 556 F.3d 1232 (11th Cir. 2009) (district court has inherent authority to manage docket and dismiss for failure to prosecute)
- Orozco v. United States INS, 911 F.2d 539 (11th Cir. 1990) (habeas relief requires custody by the authority against whom relief is sought)
- Owens v. Pinellas Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, [citation="331 F. App'x 654"] (11th Cir.) (dismissal under Rule 41(b) appropriate where litigant fails to comply with court order and is forewarned)