Salazar Arroyo v. LaRose
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 4
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a First Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by a DHS detainee and determined that summary dismissal was unwarranted. The court ordered the Respondents to file a Return by October 2025 and set a briefing schedule for the Petitioner's optional Traverse.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring response to First Amended Petition and setting briefing schedule“Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the First Amended Petition should not be granted by filing a written Return on or before October 2025.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for summary dismissal in habeas corpus cases, finding that the petition did not meet the threshold for being 'vague conclusory,' 'palpably incredible,' or 'patently frivolous or false.' The procedural steps taken (ordering a return and setting a schedule) are standard for a § 2241 petition that survives initial screening. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural ruling in a habeas corpus case. It correctly cites the controlling Ninth Circuit authority for the standard of summary dismissal and applies it to the facts (finding the petition not frivolous). The procedural orders regarding the Return and Traverse are consistent with federal habeas practice and local rules.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IVAN SALAZAR ARROYO, Case No.: 25cv2190-LL-MMP 12 Petitioner, AMENDED ORDER REQUIRING 13 v. RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED PETITION AND SETTING 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden, BRIEFING SCHEDULE Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 19 On September 8, 2024, after the Court issued an Order Requiring Response to 20 Petition and Setting Briefing Schedule, Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition for Writ 21 of Habeas Corpus. ECF Nos. 3, 4. This Amended Order reflects the change in operative 22 petitions, but does not change the briefing schedule. 23 On August 25, 2025, Petitioner, a detainee in the custody of the U.S. Department of 24 Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, filed a Petition for a Writ of 25 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). ECF No. 1. On September 8, 26 2025, he filed a First Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. ECF No. 4. Having 27 reviewed the First Amended Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is 28 unwarranted at this time. See Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) 1 ||(‘Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are ‘vague 2 conclusory’ or ‘palpably incredible’ or ‘patently frivolous or false.” (citations 3 || omitted)). 4 Accordingly, Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the First 5 || Amended Petition should not be granted by filing a written Return on or before October 6 || 2025. The Return shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues 7 ||raised in the First Amended Petition. Respondent shall serve a copy of its Return upon 8 || Petitioner concurrently with the filing. Petitioner may, but is not required, to reply to the 9 Return by filing a Traverse on or before November 10, 2025. After briefing is complete, 10 Court will take the matter under submission and without oral argument pursuant to 11 || Local Civil Rule 7.1(d)(1), unless the parties are notified otherwise. 12 IT IS FUTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall serve notice of this Order 13 |} and the First Amended Petition [ECF No. 4] to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern 14 || District of California. 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 || Dated: September 9, 2025 NO 17 QF 18 Honorable Linda Lopez 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28