by the INS at some future date.”); Lepez-Mejia v. INS, 798 F.Supp. 625, 627 (C.D.Cal.1992) (INS detainer “merely notifies the prison that the INS has some interest in a particular inmate, and asks prison officials to advise the INS when the inmate is about to be released.”) (emphasis added). The lodging of such a detainer “does not result in present confinement by the INS,” Roldan, 984 F.2d at 88, and therefore is insufficient to support habeas jurisdiction. See, e.g., Dearmas v. INS, No. 92 Civ. 8615(PKL), 1993 WL 213031, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 15, 1993) (“The Court agrees with the clear majority of courts which have found that the filing of a detainer does not constitute ‘custody’ by the INS for purposes of habeas jurisdiction.”); Prieto v. Gluch, 913 F.2d 1159, 1162-64 (6th Cir.1990) (<HOLDING>); Orozco v. INS, 911 F.2d 539, 541 & n. 2 (11th
holding that infirmities in state habeas proceedings do not constitute grounds for federal habeas relief holding that the district court lacks personal jurisdiction over a habeas petition when the state official having custody is not named as respondent holding that habeas claim not included in petition and never raised by petitioner before the district court as basis for habeas relief is procedurally defaulted recognizing that federal habeas statutes require petitioner to be in custody when petition filed holding that district court lacked jurisdiction over habeas petition by federal prisoner seeking to challenge ins detainer because detainer is merely a notice and lodging thereof does not constitute custody for habeas purposes