Jorge Alberto Alejandre-Servin v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Facility, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition filed by an immigration detainee seeking release from custody. The court denied summary dismissal, finding the claims not frivolous despite factual inconsistencies, and ordered the respondents to file a response.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for summary dismissal denied; respondents ordered to respond to the petition.“Thus, the government must respond.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for screening habeas petitions, which requires only that the petition be sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. The court noted that while the factual history was muddled, the legal claims (specifically due process challenges to prolonged detention) are not frivolous and have potential merit. Therefore, the decision to require a response follows from the law and the record recited. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the low threshold for surviving the screening stage of a habeas petition. It acknowledges the factual inconsistencies in the petition but correctly concludes that these do not render the legal claims frivolous, citing relevant Ninth Circuit and district court authority. The decision to require a response is the appropriate procedural step given the potential merit of the due process claim.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Jorge Alberto ALEJANDRE-SERVIN, Case No.: 25-cv-3827-AGS-JLB 4 Petitioner, ORDER SCREENING PETITION AND REQUIRING RESPONSE 5 v. 6 WARDEN OF THE OTAY MESA DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 7 8 Respondents. 9 10 Petitioner Jorge Alejandre-Servin seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 11 § 2241 to free him from immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a 12 claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. See Rules Governing Section 13 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if 14 it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 15 entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting court to apply Rules Governing Section 2254 16 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules permit 17 “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 18 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any 19 potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id. 20 Alejandre-Servin asserts that his detention violates due process, the Immigration and 21 Nationality Act, the Administrative Procedures Act, and the Fourth Amendment. (See 22 generally ECF 3.) The factual support for these claims is hard to pin down. According to 23 the petition, on “about August 31, 2025,” Alejandre-Servin, a “citizen and national of 24 Mexico,” last entered the United States and is currently detained in immigration custody. 25 (ECF 1, at 3.) It’s unclear when that detention began. (Compare ECF 1, at 3 (“Since the 26 arrest on or about August 31, 2025, Mr. Alejandre-Servin has remained in the Respondents’ 27 custody.”); with id. at 6 (“Petitioner has been detained since or about November 24, 28 2025.”).) The allegations also make it difficult to ascertain if his current detention was | ||}broken up by a parole grant (or otherwise) after his most recent entry. (Compare id. at 3 2 (“Since the arrest on or about August 31, 2025, Mr. Alejandre-Servin has remained in the 3 ||Respondents’ custody.”); with id. at 7 (“Here, Mr. Alejandre-Servin was detained 4 subsequently following his latest entry into the United States.”’).) 5 Given this muddled and inconsistent factual history, the Court struggles to predict 6 || how likely any of petitioner’s claims are to succeed or even under what authority he is 7 |\detained. Yet his claims are not frivolous. After all, some courts have concluded that 8 || prolonged detention can violate due process, even for arriving aliens subject to mandatory 9 || detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). See, e.g., Kydyrali v. Wolf, 499 F. Supp. 3d 768, 772 10 }/(S.D. Cal. 2020) (“[T]he Court joins the majority of courts across the country in concluding 11 an unreasonably prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without an 12 || individualized bond hearing violates due process.”). Thus, the government must respond. 13 By January 13, 2026, respondents must answer the petition. Petitioner may reply 14 January 20, 2026. The Court will hold oral argument on January 27, 2026, 15 || at 2:00 p.m. 16 Dated: December 31, 2025 18 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28