Rafael Enrique Gonzales-Corrales v. I.C.E.
522 F. App'x 619
11th Cir.2013Background
- Gonzales-Corrales, a Cuban national, was convicted in 2009 in the Southern District of Florida and is serving a 121-month federal sentence at D. Ray James; DHS issued an immigration detainer filed with BOP on October 7, 2009.
- He filed a pro se pleading titled “Challenge of Present and Future Incarceration,” naming ICE as respondent and alleging detainer-related limitations on RDAP access and halfway-house eligibility.
- District court construed the pleading as a § 2241 petition and directed show cause; government argued improper party, non-exhaustion of administrative remedies, and mischaracterization as § 2241 or Bivens claims.
- Gonzales-Corrales argued the suit was for declaratory/injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against ICE, asserting equal protection concerns for Cuban inmates; he did not identify a statutory basis for the requested relief.
- The magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, noting the petition was a “mixed” petition seeking relief under § 2241 and Bivens, and exhaustion was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over a § 2241 challenge against ICE | Gonzales-Corrales contends ICE is proper respondent | Government argues improper respondent and lack of custody | Yes; district court lacked jurisdiction against ICE as custodian; warden is proper respondent |
| Whether the petition was properly dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies | Gonzales-Corrales contends remedies available; forms were unavailable | Exhaustion required and not shown | Yes; dismissal without prejudice upheld for non-exhaustion |
| Whether a Bivens claim could lie against ICE or an agency | Pro se pleading sought Bivens relief against ICE | Bivens claims cannot be brought against a federal agency or official capacity | Yes; Bivens claims against ICE properly dismissed without prejudice |
| Whether detainer alone confers custody for § 2241 jurisdiction | Detainer created custody for relief | Detainer alone does not create ICE custody absent removal proceedings | Yes; detainer alone does not create custody; no jurisdiction over ICE |
| Whether the petition could be construed as mandamus or other relief | Suggests mandamus against ICE | No clear, non-discretionary duty by ICE | Not warranted; mandamus not available here |
Key Cases Cited
- Alanis-Bustamante v. Reno, 201 F.3d 1303 (11th Cir. 2000) (de novo review of § 2241 dismissal; jurisdictional standard)
- Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426 (2004) (proper respondent and custody concepts in § 2241)
- Orozco v. INS, 911 F.2d 539 (11th Cir. 1990) (detainer alone does not confer custody)
- Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (limits on Bivens against federal agencies/officials)
- FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471 (1994) (Bivens claims not against federal agency)
- United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir. 2008) (exhaustion and proper defendant considerations)