Torres v. U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
CIVIL ACTION NO. 26-10939-RGS
LORENZO TORRES
v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCMENT
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
February 20, 2026
STEARNS, D.J.
For the reasons stated below, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis
is denied without prejudice. 	If petitioner wishes to proceed with a habeas
action, he 	must resolve the filing fee and file a petition for writ of habeas
corpus.
BACKGROUND
Petitioner Lorenzo Torres, an inmate at Federal Medical Center,
Devens, in Ayer, Massachusetts, filed a pro se "Motion to Review U.S.
Immigration Final Order of Removal and a 2241 Requesting that the
Conspiracy 	Charge 	Be 	Remove[d] 	Due 	to 	New 	Law 	of 	Leadership”
(hereinafter, "the petition") in the United States Court of Appeals for the
First Circuit. See Torres v. Bondi, No. 25-2202 (1st Cir.). On February 20,
2026, the appeals court transferred the pending motion to proceed in forma
pauperis and the petition to the District of Massachusetts so that the district
Case 1:26-cv-10939-RGS Document 3 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 5

2
court may determine in the first instance 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 Doc. No. 2,
and the petition and attachments were entered on the docket as a Petition
for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	See Doc. No. 1. 	The
petition names as respondent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Id. at 5 - 6. 	Among other things, petitioner states that his constitutional
rights were violated because he was “issued a final order of removal ithout
seeing an immigration judge.” Id. at 5. In addition to challenging the order
of removal, the determination that he is ineligible for credits under the First
Step Act. Id.
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be denied without
prejudice because it was filed without a copy of petitioner’s prison account
statement.
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 U.S.C. § 1914(a) (fees); 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915 (proceedings in forma pauperis). Any motion for leave to proceed
Case 1:26-cv-10939-RGS Document 3 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 5

3
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.
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
DISCUSSION
Section 2241 gives the federal courts jurisdiction to provide habeas
relief “within their respective jurisdictions” to prisoners who are “in custody
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-10939-RGS Document 3 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 5

4
in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28
U.S.C. § 2241(a), (c)(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 the calculation of prison
credits, he may wish to file a 2241 petition seeking such credits. 	A § 2241
petition “can be used, among other things, to challenge the ‘manner of
execution’ of a federal sentence.” Cockerham v. Boncher, 125 F.4th 11, 13 (1st
Cir. 2024) (quoting Muniz v. Sabol, 517 F.3d 29, 33-34 (1st Cir. 2008)). 	A
petitioner may challenge “computation of a prisoner's sentence by prison
officials via a section 2241 petition.” Walsh v. Boncher, 652 F. Supp. 3d 161,
164 (D. Mass. 2023) (cleaned up). Before filing a § 2241 petition, a federal
inmate must exhaust his administrative remedies. Id. at 167 (“Ordinarily, a
federal inmate must exhaust the BOP’s administrative remedies before filing
a section 2241 petition in federal court.”); Rogers v. United States, 180 F.3d
349, 358 (1st Cir. 1999). However, there is “the potential for a waiver of the
Case 1:26-cv-10939-RGS Document 3 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 5

5
administrative 	exhaustion 	requirement 	for 	§ 	2241 	petitions 	where 	a
petitioner can show that fulfilling the requirement would be futile.” Levine
v. U.S. Dep't of Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 20-cv-11833, 2021 WL 681689
at *3 (D. Mass. Feb. 22, 2021).
To the extent petitioner seeks to challenge his custody under a final
order of removal, 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. As noted by the First Circuit, petitioner makes only
vague references to an order of removal and he does not attach a copy of any
order to his petition. Doc. No. 1 at 21.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ordered as follows:
1. 	The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED.
2. 	If petitioner wishes to proceed with a habeas action, within 35 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. 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/ Richard G. Stearns
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:26-cv-10939-RGS Document 3 Filed 02/20/26 Page 5 of 5