Loeung v. Arnold

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 CASE NO. 3:25-cv-05316-JLR-GJL 11 Petitioner, v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 12 KAREN ARNOLD, Noting Date: July 28, 2025 13 Respondent. 14

15 This 28 U.S.C. § 2241 federal habeas action has been referred to United States Magistrate 16 Judge Grady J. Leupold. Petitioner Sambath Loeung, proceeding pro se, initiated this action 17 while imprisoned at Stafford Creek Correction Center challenging an immigration detainer 18 issued by the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Dkt. 4. 19 This matter is before the Court for review following Petitioner’s failure to show cause 20 why this action should not be DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. In particular, Petitioner has 21 failed to demonstrate—either in his Petition or by responding to the Court’s Show Cause 22 Order—that he satisfies the “in custody” requirement for obtaining federal habeas corpus relief 23 from his immigration detainer. Dkt. 5 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3), Maleng v. Cook, 490 U.S. 24 1 488, 490 (1989), and Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d 816, 821 (9th Cir. 2009) (“The text of the 2 statute makes clear, and the Supreme Court has confirmed, that ‘custody’ is a jurisdictional 3 prerequisite to habeas review under § 2241(c)(3).”)). 4 As this Court previously explained:

5 An immigration detainer is a request to a law enforcement agency or prison to notify the United States Department of Homeland Security before it releases a 6 noncitizen of the United States upon completion of their criminal sentence so that ICE may take custody of a noncitizen and begin removal proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 7 287.7. Because an immigration detainer does not mean an individual is—or certainly will be—subject to a final order of removal, the Ninth Circuit has 8 explained, “the bare detainer letter alone does not sufficiently place [a noncitizen] in…custody to make habeas corpus available.” Garcia v. Taylor, 40 F.3d 299, 303 9 (9th Cir. 1994) superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Campos v. I.N.S., 62 F.3d 311, 314 (9th Cir. 1995). 10 11 Dkt. 5 at 3–4. 12 Because Petitioner, a state prisoner, is attempting to challenge his bare detainer letter, the 13 Court lacks jurisdiction to hear his Petition. See, e.g., Donmon v. Jackson, No. 3:24-CV-05647- 14 BJR-TLF, 2025 WL 725203, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 30, 2025), report and recommendation 15 adopted, 2025 WL 723662 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 5, 2025) (dismissing state prisoner’s habeas 16 petition challenging immigration detainer for lack of jurisdiction); Lieng v. United States, No. 17 CV 14-02722-JAK DFM, 2014 WL 1652496, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2014) (reaching the same 18 conclusion with regard to federal prisoner). 19 Accordingly, the undersigned recommends this action be DIMISSED without prejudice 20 for lack of jurisdiction. 21 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b), the parties 22 shall have fourteen (14) days from service of this report to file written objections. See also Fed. 23 R. Civ. P. 6. Failure to file objections will result in a waiver of those objections for purposes of 24 1 de novo review by the district judge, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), and can result in a waiver of 2 those objections for purposes of appeal. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 142 (1985); Miranda 3 v. Anchondo, 684 F.3d 844, 848 (9th Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Accommodating the time 4 limit imposed by Rule 72(b), the Clerk is directed to set the matter for consideration on July 28,

5 2025, as noted in the caption. 6 7 Dated this 11th day of July, 2025. 8 A 9 Grady J. Leupold 10 United States Magistrate Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24