United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
DONALD W. REYENGA, Petitioner
SHERIFF'S OFFICE RED RIVER PARISH, ET AL., Respondents
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
PEREZ-MONTES, MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 filed by pro se Petitioner Donald W.
Reyenga (“Reyenga”) (#17309-035). Reyenga is an
inmate in the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”), incarcerated at the United States
Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana. Reyenga complains that a
state detainer is preventing him from participating in
certain programs in prison.
Reyenga cannot establish the violation of a constitutional
right, his Petition (Doc. 1) should be DENIED and DISMISSED
pleaded guilty to a single count of felon in possession of a
firearm in the Shreveport Division of this District Court. At
his sentencing proceeding, the Court determined that Reyenga
was an Armed Career Criminal under the provisions of 18
U.S.C. § 924(e), and Reyenga was sentenced to a term of
imprisonment of 192 months. (5:14-cr-117). Following
Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) and
Mathis v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2243 (2016),
Reyenga was resentenced to a term of imprisonment of 120
months, which was an upward departure from the Sentencing
Guidelines. (5:14-cr-117, W.D. La., Doc. 49, p. 12).
Reyenga's appeal of the sentence is pending in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. (Docket No.
18-30995, 5th Cir.).
alleges that a detainer was issued, as Reyenga has several
unexecuted warrants in Red River Parish. Reyenga alleges the
warrants involve the same criminal conduct that resulted in
his federal conviction. (Doc. 1). It is unknown whether the
State ultimately intends to prosecute Reyenga on those
charges at the end of his federal prison term, but as of the
date of Reyenga's re-sentencing, Red River Parish had not
executed or withdrawn the warrants. (5:14-cr-117, Doc. 49,
pp. 5-6). Thus, no charges are pending against Reyenga.
alleges that the detainer results in a higher custody
classification and renders him ineligible for certain federal
programs. (Doc. 1). Reyenga asks the Court to order the Red
River Sheriff's Department to arrest Reyenga and formally
sought a writ of mandamus in the Louisiana Second Circuit
Court of Appeal requesting that the trial court be ordered to
act on any pending state charges. The appellate court
confirmed with the 39th Judicial District Court that there
were six outstanding warrants for Reyenga's arrest, but
no pending charges. The appellate court noted it had no
authority to order Reyenga's arrest. (Doc. 5-1, p. 15).
Law and Analysis
§ 2241 contains no exhaustion requirement, the Fifth
Circuit generally requires that a petitioner seeking relief
under § 2241 first exhaust his state remedies. See
Richie v. Scott, 70 F.3d 1269 (5th Cir. 1995); 28 U.S.C.
§ 2241(c)(3). Reyenga did not seek review in the
Louisiana Supreme Court, so his claim is not exhausted.
Reyenga has provided no authority indicating that he has a
due process right to be arrested. Since the warrants have not
been executed, no procedural rights have been violated. At
Reyenga's re-sentencing, his attorney indicated:
“Red River has not and doesn't seem to be willing
to dismiss those state court charges.” (5:14-cr-117,
Doc. 49, pp. 5-6). A federal court should abstain from
interfering with state criminal proceedings except under
extraordinary circumstances. Younger v. Harris, 401
U.S. 37, 53-54 (1971). Reyenga has provided no authority for
this Court to order the state to prosecute him or withdraw
its warrants. However, Reyenga may ask his court-appointed
attorney to make another inquiry with Red River Parish.
Reyenga cites Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374 (1969) in
support of his claim, Smith involved a
prisoner's right to a speedy trial following an
indictment in state court. Reyenga has not yet been arrested,
so there has been no indictment.
complains that the detainer prohibits him from participating
in certain programs and affects his custody classification.
(Doc. 1). However, a prisoner has no due process right to a
certain classification or ...