Debenedetto v. Bowers

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
GARY DEBENEDETTO, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
) 	Civil Action
v. 	) 	No. 26-10548-IT
)
FREDDIE BOWERS, Warden, 	)
)
Respondent. 	)
ORDER
February 6, 2026
TALWANI, J.
Petitioner Gary Debenedetto (“Petitioner” or “Debenedetto”) is currently in custody at
Federal Medical Center Devens (“FMC Devens”) in Ayer, Massachusetts, following a court-
ordered commitment pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4246. See United States v. Debenedetto, No. 5:14-
02172 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 6, 2014), aff’d 618 Fed. App’x 751, 753-54 (4th Cir. Aug 18, 2015).1
On October 15, 2025, Debenedetto filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (Doc. No. 1) with the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. Debenedetto v. Bowers, No. 1:25-cv-12862 (N.D. Ill. Oct 15, 2025). He filed an
Amended Petition (Doc. No. 3) on January 20, 2026, challenging the lawfulness of his civil
commitment. Id.
1 The court may take judicial notice of these proceedings. See Wiener v. MIB Group, Inc., 86
F.4th 76, 81 n.3 (1st Cir. 2023) (“It is well-accepted that federal courts may take judicial notice
of proceedings in other courts if those proceedings have relevance to the matters at hand.”
(quoting Law Offices of David Efron v. Matthews & Fullmer Law Firm, 782 F.3d 46, 56 n.7 (1st
Cir. 2015))).
Case 1:26-cv-10548-IT Document 10 Filed 02/06/26 Page 1 of 3

2
On February 3, 2026, the case was ordered transferred to this district. Order (Doc. No. 4),
No. 1:25-cv-12862 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 3, 2026). The transfer order states in part that because
Debenedetto challenges his present custody, the proper venue for his Section 2241 petition is the
District of Massachusetts, the district of confinement. Id.
Debenedetto’s amended petition has not been served pending the court’s preliminary
review of the pleading. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243 (providing that, if “it appears from the application
[for a writ of habeas corpus] that the applicant . . . is not entitled [to the writ],” the district court
is not required to serve the petition on the respondent).2
Habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is an extraordinary remedy typically available only
when “the petitioner has no other remedy.” Cockerham v. Boncher, No. 1:22-cv-11159-ADB,
2023 WL 5179248, at *3 (D. Mass. Aug. 11, 2023) (citing Archuleta v. Hedrick, 265 F.3d 644,
648 (8th Cir. 2004)). Here, Debenedetto has another remedy pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h)
which provides:
Regardless of whether the director of the facility in which a person is committed
has filed a certificate pursuant to the provisions of subsection (e) of section 4241,
4244, 4245, 4246, or 4248, or subsection (f) of 4243, counsel for the person or his
legal guardian may, at any time during such person’s commitment, file with the
court that ordered the commitment a motion for a hearing to determine whether
the person should be discharged from such facility….
Id. (emphasis added).
Here, Petitioner seeks release because he believes his civil commitment under § 4246 is
unlawful. See generally Doc. No. 3. As such, a discharge motion under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) filed
2 The rules governing Section 2254 cases may be applied at the discretion of the district court to
other types of habeas petitions. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings.
Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings, the Court is required to
examine a petition, and if it “plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the
petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,” the Court “must dismiss the petition and
direct the clerk to notify the petitioner.” Rule 4; see McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 849, 856
(1994) (habeas petition may be dismissed if it appears to be legally insufficient on its face).
Case 1:26-cv-10548-IT Document 10 Filed 02/06/26 Page 2 of 3

3
with the court that ordered the commitment is the appropriate vehicle for relief. See Garcia v.
Spaulding, 324 F. Supp. 3d 228, 235 (D. Mass. 2018) (noting that 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h) is the
appropriate vehicle for a patient who challenges the validity of his confinement and seeks to be
discharged). The court’s records indicate that Debenedetto is presently challenging the fact of his
confinement before the committing court. See Debenedetto v. Bowers, No. 5:25-02155
(E.D.N.C.).
Because relief is available under § 4247(h) from the committing court and a proceeding
already pending there, this court will dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. See Phelps v. Haas,
No. 06-cv-40163, 2007 WL 2827416, at *1 (D. Mass. Sep. 26, 2007) (dismissing habeas petition
under § 2241 because “[t]o the extent that [petitioner’s] claim in this petition challenges the basis
for the decision to commit him, this claim must be brought in the committing court” (citing 18
U.S.C. § 4247(h)); Commey v. Grandolsky, 2 F. Supp. 3d 48, 49 (D. Mass. 2014) (transferring
habeas petition challenging continued confinement to committing court) (citing 18 U.S.C. §
4247(h)); Cockerham, 2023 WL 5179248, at *3 (dismissing habeas petition because petitioner
could challenge confinement under 18 U.S.C. § 4247(h)); Timms v. Johns, 627 F.3d 525, 531-33
(4th Cir. 2010) (finding district court should have refused to exercise jurisdiction over a habeas
petition where the statutory scheme under which he was committed provided alternative
remedies).
Accordingly, the court DENIES the amended petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241
and DISMISSES this action. The Clerk shall enter a separate order of dismissal.
SO ORDERED.
February 6, 2026 	/s/ Indira Talwani 	_________
INDIRA TALWANI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-10548-IT Document 10 Filed 02/06/26 Page 3 of 3