ORDER

SARA DARROW, District Judge.

On November 16, 2018, Petitioner Srinvas Reddy Veerareddy ("Petitioner") filed his Petition (Doc 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging he is being improperly detained by the Immigration, Customs and Enforcement Agency (ICE). He is currently housed at the Jerome Combs Detention Center in Kankakee County, Illinois. Petitioner has also filed a Motion for Service of Process at Government Expense (Doc. 4) and a Motion to Request Counsel (Doc. 5).

Section 2241 covers any claim for release by a person who contends that his custody violates the Constitution or laws of the United States. Collins v. Holinka, 510 F.3d 666, 667 (7th Cir. 2007). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2243 and 2241, the Court's preliminary review indicates that the Petition could have merit and therefore orders the proper respondents to show cause, if any it may have, within twenty-one (21) days after service of this Order, why said writ should not be granted. After Respondent has filed his response, Petitioner is ordered to file any traverse or reply to the response within twenty-one (21) days after service of said response on him. The Court admonishes Petitioner that a failure to reply to the response pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2248 will cause the Court to take the allegations in the response to the Writ of Habeas Corpus as true except to the extent that the judge finds from the evidence that they are not true.

Petitioner has not named the proper respondents in his Petition. When an alien is detained awaiting deportation due to a removal order, the proper respondent is the warden of the state jail where the alien is being kept. Kholyavskiy v. Achim, 443 F.3d 946, 950-53 (7th Cir. 2006). Chad Kolitwenzew, as Chief of Corrections for the Kankakee County Sheriff's Office, is the only proper respondent and is added as Respondent in this case. See Robledo-Gonzalez v. Ashcroft, 342 F.3d 667, 673 (7th Cir. 2003) (the writ of habeas corpus acts upon the person who confines the petitioner). Field Office Director Ricardo Wong and Kankakee County Sheriff Mike Downey are not proper respondents, and they are terminated from this case. Under Illinois law, 55 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/3-9005(a)(4), it is the duty of the State's Attorney of Kankakee County to defend Respondent Kolitwenzew in this suit.

However, as has been done in Central District of Illinois cases Bhatti v. Jerome Combs Detention Center et al., 17-cv-1480, Gonzalez v. Kolitwenzew et al., 17-cv-1580, Baez-Sanchez v. Kolitwenzew et al., 18-cv-2134, and de Miranda Mendes, 18-cv-2276, this Court will designate the United States as an Interested Party in this case. The U.S. Attorney's Office is hereby designated to represent the United States in this case.

Petitioner has filed a Motion for Service of Process at Government Expense (Doc. 4) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). However, service of § 2241 Petitions is governed by 28 U.SC. § 2243 and Rules 1(b) and 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Petitions, and will be completed as ordered below. Accordingly, this motion is DENIED.

Petitioner has also filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 5). When confronted with a motion to appoint counsel, the Court should ask whether the Petitioner has made efforts to obtain counsel and whether the Petitioner appears competent to litigate the case himself. Pruitt v. Mote, 503 F.3d 647, 654 (7th Cir.2007). Here, Petitioner has made various efforts to obtain counsel, but has not been successful. However, the Court notes that Petitioner has clearly presented his claim and has not stated that he suffers from any mental or physical disability that would impair his ability to represent himself. At this time, the Court finds that Petitioner is competent to represent himself and advance his claims on his own. Accordingly, Petitioner's Motion Requesting Counsel is, respectfully, DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED: