Wuanerge Alberto-Alvarenga v. Richard A. Aumille, in his official capacity as Warden of Seneca County Jail, et al.

Alberto-Alvarenga v. Aumille · United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division · March 4, 2026 · No. 3:25-CV-02644-JRK

Summary

This Report and Recommendation addresses a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition filed by an immigration detainee challenging his continued detention. The magistrate judge recommends adding the ICE Detroit Field Office Director as the proper respondent, declining to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and granting the petition to require a bond hearing under 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a). The recommendation also denies the petitioner’s motion to file a sur-reply and denies as moot his motion to expedite.

Holdings

  1. The proper ICE Detroit Field Office Director, Kevin Raycraft, should be added as a party, and the petition should not be dismissed on respondent-identification or personal-jurisdiction grounds.
  2. Administrative exhaustion should be waived, and petitioner's withdrawal of his earlier bond request did not foreclose a constitutional challenge to his continued detention.
  3. The district court had subject-matter jurisdiction over petitioner's § 2241 challenge to the legality and constitutionality of his detention because the claim did not require review of the merits of his removal order.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the proper ICE official should be added or substituted as the respondent in the § 2241 habeas proceeding.
  2. Whether the court should dismiss the petition for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2).
  3. Whether prudential exhaustion of immigration-administrative remedies was required despite petitioner's constitutional challenge to his continued detention.
  4. Whether 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) or related jurisdiction-stripping provisions barred district-court review of petitioner's detention-based habeas claim.
  5. Whether petitioner was detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225 or instead fell within the discretionary bond framework of 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), and whether due process independently required a bond hearing.

Cases Cited (0)

No outbound citations extracted.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…