Yuniesky Garcia Camba v. Warden, Ste. Genevieve County Detention Center, et al.

E.D. Missouri

Yuniesky Garcia Camba v. Warden, Ste. Genevieve County Detention Center, et al.

DecidedMay 14, 2026

Docket1:26-cv-00103

StatusUnknown

This text of Yuniesky Garcia Camba v. Warden, Ste. Genevieve County Detention Center, et al. (Yuniesky Garcia Camba v. Warden, Ste. Genevieve County Detention Center, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Yuniesky Garcia Camba v. Warden, Ste. Genevieve County Detention Center, et al., (E.D. Mo. 2026).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

YUNIESKY GARCIA CAMBA, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 1:26-cv-00103-MTS ) WARDEN, STE. GENEVIEVE COUNTY ) DETENTION CENTER, et al., ) ) Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Yuniesky Garcia Camba has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that he has been confined in the Ste. Genevieve County Detention Center by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement since March 26, 2026. Doc. [1]. After a complete review of his filings, the Court determines that precedent of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit forecloses the habeas relief he seeks.1 Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128, 1132 (8th Cir. 2026); Lugo- Solet v. Mullin, 1:26-cv-0052-ZMB, 2026 WL 1162233, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 29, 2026) (citing Banyee v. Garland, 115 F.4th 928, 933 (8th Cir. 2024)). It therefore “plainly appears” that Petitioner “is not entitled to relief,” and the Court accordingly

1 Petitioner also purports to bring a claim for “Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs” regarding his chronic hypertension. Doc. [1] at 6. He cannot bring such a claim in a habeas petition. See Kruger v. Erickson, 77 F.3d 1071, 1073–74 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam); Pinson v. Berkebile, 486 F. App’x 745, 747 (10th Cir. 2012). Petitioner remains free, under the strictures of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), to bring “a civil rights claim or possibly a Federal Tort Claims Act claim against the United States,” if he chooses to do so. See Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 387 (7th Cir. 2005). will enter an Order of Dismissal herewith. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.” Dated this 14th day of May 2026. Th ful T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

? Under Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the Rules generally apply to § 2241 petitions. _2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI SOUTHEASTERN DIVISION

YUNIESKY GARCIA CAMBA, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) vs. ) Case No. 1:26-cv-00103-MTS ) WARDEN, STE. GENEVIEVE COUNTY ) DETENTION CENTER, et al., ) ) Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION Yuniesky Garcia Camba has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, claiming that he has been confined in the Ste. Genevieve County Detention Center by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement since March 26, 2026. Doc. [1]. After a complete review of his filings, the Court determines that precedent of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit forecloses the habeas relief he seeks.1 Avila v. Bondi, 170 F.4th 1128, 1132 (8th Cir. 2026); Lugo- Solet v. Mullin, 1:26-cv-0052-ZMB, 2026 WL 1162233, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 29, 2026) (citing Banyee v. Garland, 115 F.4th 928, 933 (8th Cir. 2024)). It therefore “plainly appears” that Petitioner “is not entitled to relief,” and the Court accordingly

1 Petitioner also purports to bring a claim for “Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs” regarding his chronic hypertension. Doc. [1] at 6. He cannot bring such a claim in a habeas petition. See Kruger v. Erickson, 77 F.3d 1071, 1073–74 (8th Cir. 1996) (per curiam); Pinson v. Berkebile, 486 F. App’x 745, 747 (10th Cir. 2012). Petitioner remains free, under the strictures of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b), to bring “a civil rights claim or possibly a Federal Tort Claims Act claim against the United States,” if he chooses to do so. See Glaus v. Anderson, 408 F.3d 382, 387 (7th Cir. 2005). will enter an Order of Dismissal herewith. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.” Dated this 14th day of May 2026. Th ful T. SCHELP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

? Under Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the Rules generally apply to § 2241 petitions. _2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Yuniesky Garcia Camba v. Warden, Ste. Genevieve County Detention Center, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yuniesky-garcia-camba-v-warden-ste-genevieve-county-detention-center-et-moed-2026.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack