United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
G. FLEISSIG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on the petition of Filmon Keshi
for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241. Having carefully considered the petition, the Court has
determined that it must be dismissed.
is presently incarcerated in the St. Louis County Justice
Center. On February 10, 2017, he plead guilty in the 21st
Judicial Circuit Court, St. Louis County, Missouri, to
tampering with a motor vehicle. See State v. Keshi
Filmon,  Case No. 16SL-CR07860-01 (21st Jud. Cir.
Feb. 10, 2017). He received a one-year term of incarceration,
to be served at the Department of Justice Services of St.
Louis County. Id.
instant petition, he alleges that he has satisfied his state
sentence, and is presently being held pursuant to a federal
detainer and an immigration detainer. He claims the detainers
violate his First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights,
and he states that he has not been taken to appear before a
judge. He also claims that he is possibly serving more time
than he should, and states that he should be allowed to do
“some time off my violation” or go home. (Docket
No. 3 at 8). He asks this Court to “get [him] in front
of a judge and tell [him] why [he] is still sitting in St.
Louis County.” Id.
28 U.S.C. § 2241 provides, in relevant part:
(c) The writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a prisoner
(1) He is in custody under or by color of the authority of
the United States or is committed for trial before some court
(2) He is in custody for an act done or omitted in pursuance
of an Act of Congress, or an order, process, judgment or
decree of a court or judge of the United States; or
(3) He is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws
or treaties of the United States; or
(4) He, being a citizen of a foreign state and domiciled
therein is in custody for an act done or omitted under any
alleged right, title, authority, privilege, protection, or
exemption claimed under the commission, order or sanction of
any foreign state, or under color thereof, the validity and
effect of which depend upon the law of nations; or
(5) It is necessary to bring him into court to testify or for
does not currently meet the federal “in custody”
requirement of § 2241. The existence of a federal
detainer and/or an immigration detainer alone is insufficient
to render him in federal custody, and therefore, the Court
presently lacks § 2241 habeas corpus jurisdiction to
entertain any challenge to those detainers. See Campillo
v. Sullivan, 853 F.2d 593, 595 (8th Cir. 1988) (it is
well-established that an immigration detainer does not
establish federal custody for habeas corpus purposes);
Carter v. Uribe, 2010 WL 234803, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan.
13, 2010) (dismissing § 2241 habeas petition brought by
state prisoner for lack of jurisdiction on basis that U.S.
Marshal's federal detainer letter did not place
petitioner in federal custody for habeas corpus purposes);
Powell v. U.S. Marshal Office, 2009 WL 839999, *4
(E.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2009) (“The Court has no habeas
jurisdiction to entertain a challenge to possible ...