Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

JOHANA KARELIS GONZALEZ ) CASE NO. 4:26-CV-1470-JJH

QUINTERO, )

) JUDGE JEFFREY J. HELMICK

Petitioner, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

)

v. ) MAGISTRATE JUDGE

) JENNIFER DOWDELL

WARDEN, MAHONING COUNTY JAIL, ARMSTRONG

)

)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

)

Respondent.

)

I. INTRODUCTION

Petitioner, Johana Karelis Gonzalez Quintero (“Ms. Gonzalez Quintero”) filed a petition

for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and named the Warden of the Mahoning County

Jail (“Warden”) as the Respondent. (ECF No. 1). In the petition, Ms. Gonzalez Quintero alleges

that her due process rights are being violated because she is being detained at the Mahoning County

Jail. (Id.) Ms. Gonzalez Quintero also requests that this Court grant her petition for a writ of habeas

corpus and order and order immediate release from ICE custody. (Id.) In the alternative, she

requests that the Court order an individualized bond hearing before an immigration judge. Finally,

she requests that the Court grant any other relief the Court deems just and proper. (Id.)

This matter was referred to me on July 18, 2026 under Local Rule 16.2 to prepare a report

and recommendation on Ms. Gonzalez Quintero’s petition. (See ECF non-document entry dated

July 18, 2026). For the following reasons, I recommend that the Court DISMISS the petition

because the Warden is not the proper Respondent. I also RECOMMEND that the Court DENY

II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Ms. Gonzalez Quintero filed her petition on June 29, 2026. (ECF No. 1.) She then filed a

Civil Cover Sheet on July 10, 2026 and styled it as a supplement to the petition. (ECF No. 2.)

This matter was referred to me on July 18, 2026. On July 20, 2026, I entered an Initial

Order stating that:

(1) Respondent shall file an Answer to the Petition within 14 days from the date of this Order

and show cause why the petition should not be granted and the writ prayed for issued;

(2) Petitioner shall have 14 days from the date of the filing of the Answer to reply by filing

a Traverse;

(3) Respondent shall have seven (7) days from the filing of the Traverse to respond by filing

a Reply. Respondent should reply to the Traverse when the Traverse raises issues or

arguments not addressed in the Answer. The Court shall consider Respondent’s decision

not to file a Reply as certification that all issues and arguments raised by Petitioner have

been fully addressed.

(ECF No. 4.)

On July 27, 2026, Respondent filed a Motion for an Order Requiring Petitioner to Show

Cause. (“Government’s Motion to Show Cause,” ECF No. 6.) Respondent’s Motion to Show Cause

requested that this Court enter an order requiring Ms. Gonzalez Quintero to affirmatively state under

the penalty of perjury that she did in fact personally sign the Petition and did so in compliance with

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Id.) First, Respondent points out that – although

Ms. Gonzalez Quintero has been detained at the Mahoning County Jail since May 30, 2026 – the

U.S. Postal Service’s Priority Mail tracking number reveals that the petition signed on June 22, 2026

was mailed from Hollywood, Florida on the same date. (Id.) And the return address on the Priority

Mail is to a residence in Cleveland, Ohio. (Id.) Second, the Government points out that the signature

on the petition differs from Ms. Gonzalez Quintero’s signature on the Civil Cover Sheet that was

submitted to the Court after the filing of the petition, further calling into question whether Ms.

Gonzalez Quintero actually signed the petition. (Id., comparing ECF No. 1 at PageID # 9 with ECF

No. 2, Civil Cover Sheet, PageID # 11, 14.)

On July 28, 2026, I issued an order directing Ms. Gonzalez Quintero to file a response to the

Respondent’s Motion to Show Cause on or before August 11, 2026. (Non-document order dated July

28, 2026).

On August 3, 2026, Respondent filed a Response to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

(ECF No. 8.) First, Respondent points out in a footnote that there is a pending Motion to Show

Cause, and that “[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be signed and verified by the

person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2242. Thus, Respondent argues that “the petition is required to be signed by Petitioner or a

recognized ‘next friend.’” (Id., PageID # 25, n.1.) Second, Respondent argues in another footnote

that a writ of habeas corpus may only be issued to the person having custody of the detainee, and in

the ICE habeas context that person is the Field Office Director for ICE. (Id.¸ PageID # 25, n.2.)

Respondent therefore maintains that the Warden of the Mahoning County Jail is not a proper

respondent. Finally, Respondent argues in the Return of Writ that Ms. Gonzalez Quintero is lawfully

detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1), without a bond hearing, as an arriving alien placed in removal

proceedings.

On August 4, 2026, Ms. Gonzalez Quintero filed a two-page response styled as a “Reply to

Motion to Dismiss.” (ECF No. 9.) In this filing, Ms. Gonzalez Quintero does not provide any factual

response to Respondent’s Motion to Show Cause. (Id.) Rather, she maintains that she lawfully

entered the United States through the CBP One process on March 6, 2023 and has fully cooperated

with immigration authorities. (Id.) Ms. Gonzalez Quintero further states that she has approved

Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and employment authorization, reflecting prior authorization to

remain and work in the United States. She also argues that although her “asylum application was

denied, that decision is not final because [she] intends to timely appeal to the Board of Immigration

Appeals,” so her immigration proceedings remain ongoing. (Id.) Finally, she states that she has

strong family ties to the United States and no criminal history, and Respondent has produced no

evidence that she is a danger to the community or a genuine risk of flight. (Id.)

Though the deadline for Ms. Gonzalez Quintero to file a Traverse was August 17, 2026, she

has not filed a Traverse to date.

III. ANALYSIS

The Warden argues he is not the proper respondent in this case. I agree.

A district court must direct a writ of habeas corpus “to the person having custody of the

person detained.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. In the immigration context, the Sixth Circuit has held that,

although the warden of the facility where the alien is detained “technically has day-to-day control,”

the “INS District Director for the facility where the petitioner is located has power over alien

habeas petitioners.” Roman v. Ashcroft, 340 F.3d 314, 320 (6th Cir. 2003) (quotations omitted).

Accordingly. “a detained alien generally must designate his immediate custodian—the District

Director for the district where he is being detained—as the respondent to his habeas corpus

petition.” Id.

Relying on Roman, several courts in this district have held that the District Director is the

proper respondent and that other respondents should be dismissed. See Martinez Hernandez v.

Raycraft, No. 3:25-CV-02591-DAR, 2026 WL 698639, at *3 (N.D. Ohio Mar. 12, 2026) (report

and recommendation) (recommending dismissal of respondents other than ICE District Director);

Hu v. Raycraft, No. 4:26-cv-113, 2026 WL 539117, at *1 n.1 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 26, 2026) (report

and recommendation) (same). I similarly hold the Warden is not the proper respondent here.

Moreover, Ms. Gonzalez Quintero has not named the District Director or anyone else other than

the Warden as a respondent.

Accordingly, I recommend that the Court dismiss the petition because the Warden is not the

proper respondent. I also recommend that the Court deny as moot the Government’s Motion to

Show Cause.

IV. RECOMMENDATION

For the reasons set forth above, I RECOMMEND that the Court DISMISS the petition (ECF

No. 1) because the Warden is not the proper respondent. I also recommend that the Court DENY

AS MOOT the Government’s Motion to Show Cause (ECF No. 6).

Dated: August 19, 2026 /s Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong

Jennifer Dowdell Armstrong

U.S. Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO PARTIES REGARDING OBJECTIONS

Local Rule 72.3(b) of this Court provides:

Any party may object to a Magistrate Judge’s proposed findings,

recommendations or report made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) within

fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof, and failure to file

timely objections within the fourteen (14) day period shall constitute a

waiver of subsequent review, absent a showing of good cause for such

failure. Such party shall file with the Clerk of Court, and serve on the

Magistrate Judge and all parties, written objections which shall specifically

identify the portions of the proposed findings, recommendations, or report to

which objection is made and the basis for such objections. Any party may

respond to another party’s objections within fourteen (14) days after being

served with a copy thereof. The District Judge to whom the case was assigned

shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made and may

accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

made by the Magistrate Judge. The District Judge need conduct a new hearing

only in such District Judge’s discretion or where required by law, and may

consider the record developed before the Magistrate Judge, making a

determination on the basis of the record. The District Judge may also receive

further evidence, recall witnesses or recommit the matter to the Magistrate

Judge with instructions.

Id. (emphasis added).

the right to raise the issue on appeal either to the district judge or in a subsequent appeal to the

United States Court of Appeals, depending on how or whether the party responds to the report and

recommendation. Berkshire v. Dahl, 928 F.3d 520, 530 (6th Cir. 2019). Objections must be

specific and not merely indicate a general objection to the entirety of the report and

recommendation; a general objection has the same effect as would a failure to object. Howard v.

Sec’y of Health and Hum. Servs., 932 F.2d 505, 509 (6th Cir. 1991).

Stated differently, objections should focus on specific concerns and not merely restate the

arguments in briefs submitted to the magistrate judge. “A reexamination of the exact same

argument that was presented to the Magistrate Judge without specific objections ‘wastes judicial

resources rather than saving them, and runs contrary to the purpose of the Magistrates

Act.’” Overholt v. Green, No. 1:17-CV-00186, 2018 WL 3018175, *2 (W.D. Ky. June 15, 2018)

(quoting Howard). The failure to assert specific objections may in rare cases be excused in the

interest of justice. See United States v. Wandahsega, 924 F.3d 868, 878-79 (6th Cir. 2019).