Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
LUIS 	MIGUEL 	VENTURA 	MORENO,
Petitioner,
v.
TOM SPANGLER, PAUL COOPER, and
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.: 	3:26-CV-417-CLC-JEM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner Luis Miguel Ventura Moreno filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention at the Roger D. Wilson Detention Facility under an
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detainer [Doc. 1]. 	Respondents have filed
responses to the petition [Docs. 6, 7]. Having reviewed the Parties’ filings and the applicable law,
the Court finds that the issues have been adequately briefed and that a hearing is unnecessary.1
For the reasons explained below, the Court denies the petition.
I. 	BACKGROUND
On August 9, 2026, Petitioner was arrested in Knoxville, Tennessee, and charged with
various Tennessee criminal offenses, including DUI and driving without a license [See Doc. 5-1]
and placed in the custody of the Knox County Sheriff’s Office [Doc. 5 ¶ 4]. Those charges are
currently set for trial on September 17, 2026 [See Doc. 5-1].
On August 10, 2026, the Knox County General Sessions Court issued Petitioner a
conditional release order, permitting Petitioner to be released from custody on his state charges if
1 See Rule 8(a), Rules Governing 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; see also
Rule 1(b) (permitting application of § 2254 Rules to other habeas petitions).
Case 3:26-cv-00417-CLC-JEM Document 9 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>

2
he fulfills the orders’ requirements [Doc. 5-2]. Specifically, the conditional release order requires
Petitioner to sign an “Acknowledgment of Special Conditions of Bond,” after which he would be
able to post bond [Id.]. Petitioner did not elect to avail himself of the conditional release order, as
he has not signed the order agreeing to the conditions of his release [Doc. 5 ¶ 7].
On August 10, 2026, ICE Lodged an Immigration detainer with the Knox County Sheriff’s
Office [Doc. 5-3]. 	The detainer does not prevent Petitioner from availing himself of the
conditional release, though he would be released into ICE custody if he did so [See id.].
In his § 2241 petition, Petitioner maintains that he is being held unlawfully, because he
was not released pursuant to the conditional release order due to the ICE detainer [See generally
Doc. 1]. After reviewing the petition, the Court entered an Order requiring Respondents to respond
to Petitioner’s allegations [Doc. 3]. On September 4, 2026, Respondents responded to the petition,
with (1) the Knox County Respondents maintaining that “Petitioner cannot be released to the
immigration detainer until he avails himself of the condition[al] release order or his pending
criminal charges are resolved, whichever occurs first” [Doc. 5 ¶ 9] and that the Court lacks
jurisdiction [Doc. 6]; and (2) the Government stating that the Court lacks jurisdiction over
Petitioner’s claims, as he is not in federal custody [Doc. 7].
II. 	ANALYSIS
Habeas relief may be granted when a petitioner demonstrates that he is “in custody in
violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 	28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
Federal district courts have jurisdiction to resolve petitions for writ of habeas corpus filed under
§ 2241 by detainees asserting “claims arising out of immigration detention.” Ly v. Hansen, 351
F.3d 263, 266 (6th Cir. 2003) (citing Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 688 (2001)).
Case 3:26-cv-00417-CLC-JEM Document 9 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>

3
Here, Petitioner is not in immigration detention as he alleges in his petition [See Doc. 1 p.
2]. 	That is, Petitioner is not in ICE custody merely because an immigration detainer has been
lodged. 	United States v. Garcia, 787 F. Supp. 3d 830, 856 n.22 (M.D. Tenn. 2025) (“[T]he
existence of an ICE detainer is not custody.” (citing United States v. Aleman-Duarte, No. 3:19-
CR-149-PLR-DCP, 2020 WL 236870, at *3 (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 15, 2020)). Instead, it is apparent
from the record that Petitioner is being held in state custody on state criminal charges because he
has not agreed to the terms of the conditional release order. 	And until Petitioner is in federal
custody, his petition is premature and the Court lacks jurisdiction over it. See Prieto v. Gluch, 913
F.2d 1159, 1162 (6th Cir. 1990) (finding no habeas jurisdiction over a petitioners’ claims against
the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”) where petitioners were not in INS custody);
see also Abriq v. Metro. Gov’t of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 333 F. Supp. 3d 783, 787 (M.D.
Tenn. 2018) (“[D]etainers notify a state or locality that ICE intends to take custody of a removable
alien, already in state custody, when that alien is released from state custody.”).
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s petition for habeas relief
and will DISMISS this action.
SO ORDERED. AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT ORDER WILL ENTER.
/s/
CURTIS L. COLLIER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 3:26-cv-00417-CLC-JEM Document 9 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 3 PageID
#: <pageID>