Diaz Fuenmayor et al v. US Immigration and Customs Enforcement

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
CARLOS LEANDRO DÍAZ
FUENMAYOR, A#245-657-133
§
§
Petitioner, §
§
v. § No. 3:26-cv-00341-S (BT)
§
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND
CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE),
§
§
§
Respondent. §
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pro se petitioner Carlos Leandro Díaz Fuenmayor—an alien detainee
incarcerated in the Limestone County Detention Center in Groesbeck, Texas—
filed this application for the writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
through his next friend, María José Martell. Pet. at 3, 4 (ECF No. 3). Petitioner
challenges the “legality and constitutionality of his prolonged immigration
detention.” Id. at 1.1 He seeks release from custody or an individualized bond
hearing before an immigration judge. Id. at 2. The Court should dismiss
Petitioner’s habeas petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
1 Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the § 2241 petition, it does not
address Martell’s ability to file a § 2241 petition on Petitioner’s behalf under 28
U.S.C. § 2242. See Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990) (explaining
that “next friend” standing is not granted automatically; the filer first “must
provide an adequate explanation—such as inaccessibility, mental
incompetence, or other disability—why the real party in interest cannot appear
on his own behalf to prosecute the action”).
Case 3:26-cv-00341-S-BT Document 4 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID <pageID>

2
The Northern District of Texas is not the correct court to entertain
Petitioner’s § 2241 petition because Petitioner is not confined here. A § 2241
petition “must be filed in the same district where the prisoner is incarcerated.”
Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 (5th Cir. 2000). The court lacks jurisdiction
to consider a § 2241 petition unless the federal prisoner or his custodian are
found within the district court’s jurisdiction. See Blau v. United States, 566
F.2d 526, 527 (5th Cir. 1978) (per curiam); see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542
U.S. 426, 443 (2004) (“The plain language of the habeas statute thus confirms
the general rule that for core habeas petitions challenging present physical
confinement, jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.”).
“Without such jurisdiction, the court has no authority to direct the actions of
the restraining authority.” Lee v. Wetzel, 244 F.3d 370, 374 (5th Cir. 2001)
(quoting Malone v. Calderon, 165 F.3d 1234, 1237 (9th Cir. 1999)). When a
district court lacks jurisdiction over a § 2241 petition, the court should dismiss
the petition without prejudice to permit the petitioner to file it in the proper
court. Id. at 375.
Here, because Petitioner is confined in the Limestone County Detention
Center, which is within the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas, see
28 U.S.C. § 124(d)(2), the court should dismiss this action without prejudice for
lack of jurisdiction. See, e.g., Burton v. United States, 2025 WL 1932355, at *1
(N.D. Tex. June 23, 2025), rec. accepted 2025 WL 1929919 (N.D. Tex. July 14,
2025) (finding that the petitioner’s § 2241 petition filed in the Northern District
of Texas should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the petitioner was
Case 3:26-cv-00341-S-BT Document 4 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID <pageID>

3
confined in the Limestone County Detention Center); see also Burton v.
Brenner, 2025 WL 1335673, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Apr. 17, 2025), rec. accepted 2025
WL 1333656 (N.D. Tex. May 7, 2025) (same); Montero v. Bush, 2005 WL
2362236, at *1 (S.D. Miss. Sept. 26, 2005) (“A § 2241 habeas petition must be
pursued in the petitioner’s district of confinement and since the petitioner is
not incarcerated in this district, this Court does not have jurisdiction to address
any constitutional issues presented by him in his § 2241 petition.”).
Recommendation
For the reasons set forth, Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition
should be dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
SO RECOMMENDED.
February 12, 2026.
______________________________
REBECCA RUTHERFORD
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE AND
NOTICE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL/OBJECT
A copy of this report and recommendation will be served on all parties in
the manner provided by law. Any party who objects to any part of this report
and recommendation must file specific written objections within 14 days after
being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). To be
specific, an objection must identify the specific finding or recommendation to
which objection is made, state the basis for the objection, and specify the place
in the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where the disputed
determination is found. An objection that merely incorporates by reference or
refers to the briefing before the magistrate judge is not specific. Failure to file
specific written objections will bar the aggrieved party from appealing the
factual findings and legal conclusions of the magistrate judge that are accepted
or adopted by the district court, except upon grounds of plain error. See
Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1417 (5th Cir. 1996).
Case 3:26-cv-00341-S-BT Document 4 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID <pageID>