Rubisel Aguilar Perez v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Rubisel Aguilar Perez against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The court dismissed the petition with leave to amend because the petitioner failed to name the immediate custodian, the warden of the detention facility, as the respondent.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of petition for writ of habeas corpus with leave to amend“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Mr. Perez’s petition with leave to amend to include the warden of Otay Mesa Regional Detention Center as a respondent.” | agree with court The decision follows from the legal requirement that a habeas petitioner challenging present physical confinement must name the immediate custodian (the warden) as the respondent. The order correctly identifies that ICE is not the proper respondent for this specific type of challenge and grants leave to amend to cure the procedural defect. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the binding Ninth Circuit precedent regarding the proper respondent in a habeas corpus action challenging physical confinement. The reasoning is direct and answers the procedural deficiency in the petition.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RUBISEL AGUILAR PEREZ, Case No.: 3:25-cv-3522-CAB-MMP 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Before the Court is Rubisel Aguilar Perez’s petition for writ of habeas corpus 18 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1.] Having reviewed Mr. Perez’s petition, the 19 Court finds it deficient because the proper respondent is the warden of Otay Mesa Regional 20 Detention Center. Habeas petitioners “challenging their present physical confinement 21 [must] name their immediate custodian, the warden of the facility where they are detained, 22 as the respondent to their petition.” Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1197 (9th Cir. 2024). 23 The Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over Mr. Perez’s petition so long as he fails to name 24 as respondent the warden of the detention facility where he is being detained. 25 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Mr. Perez’s petition with leave to amend to 26 include the warden of Otay Mesa Regional Detention Center as a respondent. Petitioner 27 28 1 ||shall have thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended petition for writ of 2 || habeas corpus. 3 It is SO ORDERED. 4 Dated: December 16, 2025 ( (jp — 5 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28