Aguilera v. Bondi

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
REINALDO OLIVERO AGUILERA,
Petitioner,
v.
PAMELA BONDI, ATTORNEY
GENERAL,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 26-cv-10949-ADB
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BURROUGHS, D.J.
For the reasons stated below, if petitioner wishes to proceed with a habeas action, he
must resolve the filing fee and file a petition for writ of habeas corpus.
I. 	Background
On September 11, 2025, Petitioner Reinaldo Olivero Aguilera, an inmate at Federal
Medical Center, Devens, in Ayer, Massachusetts, filed a pro se "Motion to Review Final Order
of Removal and Dismiss Final Order of Deportation" (hereinafter, "the petition") in the United
States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. See Aguilera v. Bondi, No. 25-1876 (1st Cir. BIA
appeal filed Sept. 11, 2025). On February 20, 2026, finding that appellate jurisdiction is lacking,
the appeals court transferred the petition to the District of Massachusetts so that the district court
may determine whether the petition may be entertained as a habeas petition of some sort and/or
whether the petition may be construed as some other type of filing within the jurisdiction of the
district court. [Id.].
The action was randomly assigned to the undersigned, see [ECF No. 2], and the petition
was entered on the docket as a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See
Case 1:26-cv-10949-ADB Document 4 Filed 03/05/26 Page 1 of 4

2
[ECF No. 1]. The petition names as respondent Attorney General Pamela Bondi. [Id.] Among
other things, petitioner expresses his desire “to fight his removal in an immigration courtroom”
and states that he is suffering from health concerns. [Id.] Attached to the petition is a Federal
Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) “Detainer Action Letter.” [Id.]
II. 	Standard of Review
The petition has not been served pending the court’s preliminary review of the document.
See McFadden v. Warden, FCI Danbury, No. CV 22-30062-KAR, 2022 WL 1556026, at *2 (D.
Mass. May 17, 2022) (explaining that 28 U.S.C. § 2243 provides that if it appears from the
application that petitioner is not entitled to relief, the district court is not required to serve the
petition on respondent); see also Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts (“Rule 4”) (providing that, if it “plainly appears from petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,” the Court “must
dismiss the petition”).1
III. 	Availability of Relief under § 2241
“[T]he essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon the legality of
that custody, and . . . the traditional function of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.”
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973). Section 2241 gives the federal courts
jurisdiction to provide habeas relief “within their respective jurisdictions” to prisoners who are
“in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. §
2241(a), (c)(3).
1 The rules governing petitions brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 cases may be applied at the
discretion of the District Court to other habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases.
Case 1:26-cv-10949-ADB Document 4 Filed 03/05/26 Page 2 of 4

3
A § 2241 petition must be brought against the petitioner’s custodian. See Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 439 (2004) (immediate custodian, not supervisory official exercising legal
control, of petitioner is proper respondent in habeas action); Vasquez v. Reno, 233 F.3d 688, 696
(1st Cir. 2000) (immigration detainee “normally must name as the respondent his immediate
custodian, that is, the individual having day-to-day control over the facility in which he is being
detained”).
To the extent petitioner seeks to challenge his custody under a final order of removal, he
may wish to file a separate § 2241 petition. Noncitizens may file a § 2241 petition challenging
their removal proceedings to the extent they claim that they are in custody in violation of federal
law. Generally, a noncitizen who is confined pursuant to criminal charges is not in ICE custody
for purposes of § 2241 simply because ICE has lodged a detainer against him with the prison
where he is incarcerated. See Garcia-Echaverria v. United States, 376 F.3d 507, 510–11 (6th
Cir. 2004) (“While an alien may file a § 2241 petition challenging his removal proceedings, an
alien is not ‘in custody’ for removal purposes if he is detained pursuant to a sentence for a
criminal conviction [even if an immigrations detainer] is filed with the prison where the
petitioner is incarcerated.”). Although a detainer, without more, is insufficient to render a
noncitizen “in custody,” a “noncitizen petitioner subject to final removal proceedings is ‘in
custody’ for habeas purposes, whether or not he is detained.” Simmonds v. INS, 326 F.3d 351,
356 (2d Cir. 2003)); see also Galaviz-Medina v. Wooten, 27 F.3d 487, 493 (10th Cir. 1994)
(“Almost all the circuit courts considering the issue have determined that the lodging of a
detainer, without more, is insufficient to render the alien in custody.”)
IV. 	Filing Fee
A party filing a habeas action in the district court must either (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee for
habeas corpus actions; or (2) seek leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. See 28
Case 1:26-cv-10949-ADB Document 4 Filed 03/05/26 Page 3 of 4

4
U.S.C. § 1914(a) (fees); 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (proceedings in forma pauperis). Any motion for
leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee must be accompanied by “a certificate
from the warden or other appropriate officer of the place of confinement showing the amount of
money or securities that the petitioner has in any account in the institution.” Rule 3(a)(2) of the
Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
V. 	Order
Upon review of the pleadings, it is hereby ordered as follows:
1. 	If petitioner wishes to proceed with a habeas action, within 42 days of the date of this
Order, petitioner must (1) either pay the $5.00 filing fee or file a motion to proceed in
forma pauperis accompanied by a certified prison account statement, (2) and file a
petition for writ of habeas corpus. 	Failure of petitioner to timely comply with these
directives will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.
2. 	The Clerk shall provide petitioner with an Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs and a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241.
So Ordered.
/s/ Allison D. Burroughs
Allison D. Burroughs
United States District Judge
March 5, 2026
Case 1:26-cv-10949-ADB Document 4 Filed 03/05/26 Page 4 of 4