Rodolfo Jose Pacheco Sena, A#221042111 v. Department of Homeland Security, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 2 at 1], Petitioner
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se immigration detainee's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a habeas corpus case. The court denied the motion because the petitioner failed to submit the required standardized financial affidavit, and warned that the case will be dismissed without prejudice if the fee is not paid or IFP status is not properly established by January 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied“Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED because Petitioner has not provided the Court with sufficient information to determine his financial status.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the local rule (S.D.Cal. CivLR 3.2) which mandates a completed affidavit with a statement of assets. The petitioner's letter was insufficient to meet this procedural requirement. The court provided a clear path to remedy the deficiency. |
Warning of Dismissal Without Prejudice“Because the Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or has qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, this case is subject to dismissal without prejudice.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that it lacks jurisdiction to proceed on the merits without the filing fee or IFP status. Setting a deadline for compliance is a standard procedural mechanism to manage the docket and ensure jurisdictional prerequisites are met. |
Notice of Deficiency in Habeas Petition (Failure to Name Warden)“the current Petition is deficient because it fails to name the warden of the facility where Petitioner is detained.” | agree with court The court correctly identified a jurisdictional defect in the habeas petition. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the proper respondent is the immediate custodian (the warden). The court cited the correct Ninth Circuit authority (Doe v. Garland) for this proposition. This is a helpful notice to a pro se litigant to allow them to amend the petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the local rule for IFP applications, provides a clear deadline for compliance, and correctly identifies a jurisdictional defect in the habeas petition while citing the appropriate binding Ninth Circuit authority. The court also helpfully provided contact information for the Federal Defenders.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODOLFO JOSE PACHECO SENA, Case No.: 25-cv-3275-CAB-MSB A#221042111, 12 ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Petitioner, 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. 14 [Doc. No. 2] DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 15 SECURITY, et al., 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner Rodolfo Jose Pacheco Sena (“Petitioner”), an immigration detainee 19 housed at the Otay Mesa Detention Center proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of 20 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner also filed a motion 21 to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. No. 2.] Upon review, Petitioner’s request to proceed 22 in forma pauperis is DENIED because Petitioner has not provided the Court with sufficient 23 information to determine his financial status. 24 A request to proceed in forma pauperis must include a completed affidavit with a 25 statement of all assets showing an inability to pay the $5.00 filing fee. See S.D.Cal. CivLR 26 3.2. The Southern District of California has a standardized application to proceed IFP 27 which requires a detailed accounting of income and expenses that is signed by the 28 1 ||requestor. While Petitioner submitted a short letter generally stating he “ha[s] no income, 2 property, or funds to pay the required $5 filing fee,” [see Doc. No. 2 at 1], Petitioner has 3 submitted a completed application with a statement of all assets in accordance with this 4 || district’s application. 5 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. 6 2.] Because the Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing 7 || fee or has qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, this case is subject to dismissal without 8 || prejudice. To avoid dismissal of this habeas case, Petitioner must, no later than January 9 2026: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee OR (2) submit adequate proof of his inability to pay 10 || the fee. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order a blank 11 || application to proceed in forma pauperis. 12 Given Petitioner’s position as a pro se litigant, the Court notes that the current 13 || Petition is deficient because it fails to name the warden of the facility where Petitioner is 14 detained. Habeas petitioners “challenging their present physical confinement [must] name 15 ||their immediate custodian, the warden of the facility where they are detained, as the 16 ||respondent to their petition.” Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1197 (9th Cir. 2024). Even 17 ||1f Petitioner submits a completed IFP and the Court grants it, the Court cannot exercise 18 ||jurisdiction unless the petition is amended to name as respondent the warden of the 19 detention facility where Petitioner is detained. 20 Finally, Petitioner may be interested in contacting Federal Defenders of San Diego 21 see if a Federal Defender can represent Petitioner in this matter. The telephone number 22 Federal Defenders’ San Diego Office is 619-234-8467 (Toll Free: 888-614-9867) and 23 || the El Centro Office is 760-335-3510 (Toll Free: 877-404-9063). 24 It is SO ORDERED. 25 26 || Dated: November 25, 2025 OB a Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 28 United States District Judge