Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

FORT MYERS DIVISION

SIRRANO SHENZUL ADDERLEY,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2:26-cv-00572-JES-DNF

U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS

ENFORCEMENT,

Defendant,

OPINION AND ORDER

Petitioner Sirrano Shenzul Adderley has filed a pro se

petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc.

1). Upon review, the Court must dismiss the petition for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

When he filed the petition, Adderley was being held at Florida

Soft Side South Detention Facility (Alligator Alcatraz) in

Ochopee, Florida. (Id. at 1).1 As grounds for relief, Adderley

states only that:

I was badly mistreated & sexually harass[ed]

by same gender as me 11-27-2023 that I was

1 Subsequent to Adderly filing this petition, mail marked

“Return to Sender Refused Unable to Forward” was returned to the

Court. (Doc. 6). A search of the Immigration and Customs

Enforcement (ICE) Online Detainee Locator System does not show

Adderley as remaining in ICE custody. See

https://locator.ice.gov/odls/#/search. Moreover, Adderley did not

pay his $5 habeas filing fee or move to proceed as a pauper. Given

that the Court will dismiss the petition because it lacks

jurisdiction to consider it, see discussion infra, it will not

order Adderley to show cause why the petition should not also be

dismissed as moot or for failure to prosecute.

forced to be removed[d], now I’m trying to

reopen the case.

Asylum/Crisis of Relief.

(Doc. 1 at 6). Thus, it appears that a final order of removal has

been entered in this case.

Congress has removed habeas corpus jurisdiction from the

district courts when a claim relates to the execution of a final

order of removal. To the extent Petitioner asks the Court to

reopen his removal proceedings, such a ruling from this Court would

interfere with the validity of a final order of removal. And

“rulings that affect the validity of the final order of removal

merge into the final order of removal for the purposes of judicial

review.” Nasrallah v. Barr, 590 U.S. 573, 582 (2020). Challenges

such as the one Adderley makes here must be filed in the

appropriate court of appeals. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(a)(5) (“[A]

petition for review filed with an appropriate court of appeals ...

shall be the sole and exclusive means for judicial review of an

order of removal ... under any provision of this chapter.”).

“Section 1252(g) is unambiguous: it bars federal courts’

subject-matter jurisdiction over any claim for which the ‘decision

or action’ of the Attorney General (usually acting through

subordinates) to commence proceedings, adjudicate cases, or

execute removal orders is the basis of the claim.” Gupta v.

McGahey, 709 F.3d 1062, 1065 (11th Cir. 2013). Thus, if Adderley

does not obtain relief from the immigration courts or before the

Board of Immigration Appeals, he may seek judicial review of his

final removal only in the appropriate appellate court.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Sirrano Shenzul Adderley’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction.

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to terminate any pending

motions or deadlines, close this case, and enter judgment

accordingly.

DONE and ORDERED in Fort Myers, Florida on March 24, 2026.

= (pt

JGHN E. STEELE

SHNIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE