ENWONWU v. JOYCE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
FRANCIS ENWONWU, 	)
)
Petitioner, 	)
)
v. 	) 	2:24-cv-00320-NT
)
KEVIN JOYCE, 	)
)
Respondent 	)
RECOMMENDED DECISION ON 28 U.S.C. § 2241 MOTION
Petitioner, who is in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) custody, seeks
habeas relief in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Petition, ECF No. 1.)
Pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, upon the filing of a
motion, the Court conducts a preliminary review of the motion.1 	Upon review, “[i]f it
plainly appears from the motion, any attached exhibits, and the record of prior proceedings
that the moving party is not entitled to relief, the judge must dismiss the motion and direct
the clerk to notify the moving party.”
After a review in accordance with Rule 4, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter
unless 	Petitioner 	amends 	his 	petition 	within 	the 	time to 	file 	an 	objection 	to 	this
recommended decision.
1 Although Petitioner asserts his claim pursuant to § 2241, “the § 2254 rules specifically state that they may
be applied by the district court to other habeas petitions.” Bramson v. Winn, 136 F. App’x 380, 382 (1st
Cir. 2005) (citing Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases). A preliminary review is also supported
under 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Section 2243 provides in pertinent part: “A court, justice or judge entertaining an
application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwith award the writ or issue an order directing the
respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted, unless it appears from the application that
the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto.” (emphasis added).
Case 2:24-cv-00320-NT Document 6 Filed 12/05/24 Page 1 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
D ISCUSSION
Petitioner asserts that he was in ICE custody from 2017 to April 2020 in connection
with a removal proceeding. 	According to Petitioner, the removal proceeding was
dismissed, and Petitioner was released on bail. 	Petitioner later served a state sentence,
which ended in August 2024. Because ICE had previously issued a detainer in December
2022,2 when he filed the petition in September 2024, Petitioner was still confined at the
Cumberland County Jail. 	In an unrelated civil case, Petitioner recently filed a notice
advising of a new address. (Notice of Change of Address, 2:24-cv-00055-SDN, ECF No.
38.) The notice reflects that at least as of November 13, 2024, Petitioner has been confined
at an ICE facility in Louisiana. In the petition, Petitioner also referenced a December 2004
order of removal, which he alleges was invalid.
Other than identifying at least two periods of confinement, the substance and bases
of the petition are difficult to decipher. 	Although Petitioner evidently questions or
challenges certain procedures that resulted in his confinement, his petition largely consists
of labels and conclusory allegations, such as “unreasonable” conduct, “fraudulent” orders,
and the right to due process. Petitioner’s allegations are insufficient to support a claim for
relief because he provides no factual support that would allow the court to assess whether
the writ of habeas corpus is available under the circumstances, see, generally, Charles A.
Wright and Arthur R. Miller, 14A Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3664 (4th ed.) (discussing
2 A detainer is “a legal order that requires a State in which an individual is currently imprisoned to hold that
individual when he has finished serving his sentence so that he may be tried by a different [sovereign] for
a different crime.” Alabama v. Bozeman, 533 U.S. 146, 148 (2001).
Case 2:24-cv-00320-NT Document 6 Filed 12/05/24 Page 2 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
limitations on judicial review of immigration proceedings), and, if so, whether his
confinement has violated the constitution and thus warrants relief. See Mayle v. Felix, 545
U.S. 644, 655 (2005) (noting that habeas corpus pleading rules are “more demanding” than
traditional notice pleading rules for civil litigation); Garuti v. Roden, 733 F.3d 18, 25 (1st
Cir. 2013) (“Conclusory allegations are insufficient to raise a substantial factual issue”
requiring development in a habeas proceeding).3 Dismissal, therefore, is warranted.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing analysis, unless within the fourteen-day period to file an
objection to this Recommended Decision, Petitioner files an amended petition to allege an
actionable claim for relief, I recommend the Court dismiss the matter.
NOTICE
A party may file objections to those specified portions of a magistrate
judge’s report or proposed findings or recommended decisions entered
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) for which de novo review by the district
3 As the First Circuit has explained:
The fundamental purpose of habeas corpus would be undermined if the writ were . . .
available upon mere ‘notice’ or token pleading, without any showing of entitlement. We
do not accept the burden, upon ourselves and other litigants alike, that would follow if state
defendants, simply by making conclusory allegations, could require district judges- and,
inevitably, on appeal, three circuit judges- to read the records and transcripts of their state
trials. Habeas corpus is a special proceeding to right wrongs, not a routine procedure to
search for them, nor a means of requiring the federal courts to review, as a matter of course,
state proceedings.
Mere assertions of ineffective counsel, for example, are not enough. Nor is it sufficient to
refer to an act or omission of counsel, as does petitioner in this case, without indicating
why it constituted gross impropriety or prejudicial misconduct.
Bernier v. Moore, 441 F.2d 395, 396 (1st Cir. 1971).
Case 2:24-cv-00320-NT Document 6 Filed 12/05/24 Page 3 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
court is sought, together with a supporting memorandum, within fourteen
(14) days of being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right
to de novo review by the district court and to appeal the district court’s order.
/s/ John C. Nivison
U.S. Magistrate Judge
Dated this 5th day of December, 2024.
Case 2:24-cv-00320-NT Document 6 Filed 12/05/24 Page 4 of 4 PageID #:
<pageID>