Raul Sanchez Bueno v. Gregory J. Archambeault, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court screened a habeas corpus petition challenging the petitioner's immigration detention under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The court found the petition sufficiently cognizable to survive summary dismissal and ordered the respondents to file a response by November 12, 2025.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order screening petition and requiring response“The government must respond.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the screening standard for habeas petitions, which permits summary dismissal only if the petition is plainly not entitled to relief or is frivolous. The petitioner alleged detention exceeding the 90-day statutory period and the six-month presumptively reasonable period established in Zadvydas, and asserted that removal was not likely in the foreseeable future. These allegations state a cognizable claim for habeas relief. The court's decision to require a response is consistent with the cited authorities and the facts recited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable screening standard for habeas petitions and applies it to the specific facts alleged by the petitioner. The petitioner's allegations of detention exceeding the statutory and presumptive limits, combined with the lack of an identified removal destination, constitute a cognizable claim under Zadvydas. The court's reliance on Neiss v. Bludworth is appropriate for the Ninth Circuit's screening standard. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a screening order.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Raul SANCHEZ BUENO, Case No.: 25-cv-2509-AGS-MMP 4 Petitioner, ORDER SCREENING PETITION AND REQUIRING RESPONSE 5 v. 6 Gregory J. ARCHAMBEAULT, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his 10 immigration detention. At this stage, the Court need not assess his likelihood of success, 11 but he has set out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. See Rules 12 Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing 13 summary dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that 14 the petitioner is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting court to apply Rules 15 Governing Section 2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the 16 relevant federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” 17 Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a 18 petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary 19 dismissal[.]” Id. 20 Petitioner, a “Mexican citizen,” claims to have been under a final order of removal 21 since “June 14, 2013.” (ECF 1, at 7, 9.) After removal, unauthorized reentry, and 22 “reinstatement” of that final order of removal, petitioner was ultimately granted 23 “Withholding from Removal” status under “18 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(3) on November 2, 2022.” 24 (Id. at 2.) He was taken back into custody in “May 9, 2025,” so ICE could attempt to 25 remove him to a “third country.” (Id. at 7, 9.) To date, in total, he’s been held in post-final- 26 removal-order custody for “201 days,” longer than the 90-day standard removal period and 27 the six-month presumptively reasonable period before due process is implicated. See 28 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(A) (“[W]hen an alien is ordered removed, the Attorney General shall 1 ||remove the alien from the United States within a period of 90 days[.]’”);Zadvydas v. Davis, 2 U.S. 678, 701 (2001) (discussing “6-month presumption” that detention is reasonable). 3 || And he contends that, since ICE has still not even identified a third country to remove him 4 ||to, there is no “significant likelihood that Petitioner’s removal from the U.S. will be 5 || accomplished in the foreseeable future.” (ECF 1, at 9); see also Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 690. 6 || This claim is neither “frivolous” nor “incredible.” The government must respond. 7 By November 12, 2025, respondents must answer the petition. Petitioner may reply 8 ||by November 26, 2025. The Court will hold oral argument on December 3, 2025, 9 || at 11:00 a.m. 10 Dated: October 23, 2025 1 _Af— 12 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28