Williams v. Sessions

Filing 5

Judge William G. Young: ORDER entered. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED. (Order mailed to petitioner on 10/20/2017.)(PSSA, 3)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ZENO A. WILLIAMS,
Petitioner,
v.
JEFFREY SESSIONS,
Respondent.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
17-10797-WGY

ORDER
YOUNG, D.J.

October 18, 2017

For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the
petition for a writ of habeas corpus.
Zeno A. Williams, who is incarcerated at MCI Framingham,
filed a document captioned as a petition for a writ of habeas
corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

According to the petition (Docket

Entry No. 1), she was “ordered removed by DHS and [her] social
security number was revoked but the prison authorities say [she
is] not being deported.”

Pet. para. 6.

She asserts that,

without her social security number, she cannot participate in any
educational or rehabilitative programs.

The administration at

MCI Framingham has informed her that they cannot assist in the
matter.

She asks that her Social Security number be reinstated

or that she be deported.
Habeas corpus review is available under § 2241 if a person
is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.”

28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).

“[T]he

essence of habeas corpus is an attack by a person in custody upon

the legality of that custody, and . . . the traditional function
of the writ is to secure release from illegal custody.”
v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973).

Preiser

“Challenges to the

validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its
duration are the province of habeas corpus; requests for relief
turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a
[non-habeas action].”

Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750

(2004).
Here, Williams has not alleged facts from which the Court
may reasonably infer that her custody is in violation of federal
law.

Williams’s preference to be removed rather than stay

incarcerated in the United States does not render her continued
imprisonment unlawful.
Moreover this Court is without jurisdiction to compel the
Attorney General to remove her from the United States.

Under 8

U.S.C. § 1252(g), this Court lacks jurisdiction “to hear any
cause or claim by or on behalf of any alien arising from the
decision or action by the Attorney General to commence
proceedings, adjudicate cases, or execute removal orders against
any alien.”

8 U.S.C. § 1252(g).

This statute ensures that the

Executive branch has the discretion to “abandon the endeavor” of
executing a removal order without the threat of judicial
interference.

Reno v. American Arab Anti-Discrimination Comm.,

525 U.S. 471, 483 (1999); see also Alvidres-Reyes v. Reno, 180
F.3d 199, 201 (5th Cir. 1999) (“The Congressional aim of
§ 1252(g) is to protect from judicial intervention the Attorney
2

General’s long-established discretion to decide whether and when
to prosecute or adjudicate removal proceedings or to execute
removal orders.” (emphasis added)).
Finally, to the extent that Williams is challenging
conditions of her confinement, she cannot raise such claims in a
habeas action.1
Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is
DENIED and this case is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.
/s/ William G. Young
WILLIAM G. YOUNG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

A litigant filing a non-habeas civil action must pay a $350
filing fee and a $50 administrative fee. The administrative fee
is waived for those parties who are allowed to proceed in forma
pauperis. Prisoners who are allowed to proceed in forma pauperis
may prosecute their action without prepayment of the $350 filing
fee, but they still must pay the $350 filing fee over time. See
28 U.S.C. § 1915(b).
3