Jashandeep Singh v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition filed by Jashandeep Singh under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and found it deficient because it failed to name the proper respondent. The court dismissed the petition with leave to amend, granting the petitioner thirty days to file an amended petition naming the warden of Otay Mesa Regional Detention Center.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of petition for writ of habeas corpus with leave to amend“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Mr. Singh’s petition with leave to amend to include the warden of Otay Mesa Regional Detention Center as a respondent.” | agree with court The order correctly identifies that a habeas petitioner challenging present physical confinement must name the immediate custodian as the respondent. The order recites that the petitioner failed to name any respondent, which is a jurisdictional defect under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dismissing with leave to amend is the standard procedural remedy for a curable defect in a habeas petition, allowing the petitioner to correct the error within a set timeframe. The court also provided helpful information regarding legal representation, which is consistent with judicial practice in pro se cases. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the Ninth Circuit precedent from Doe v. Garland to the specific facts that the petitioner failed to name a respondent. The remedy of dismissal with leave to amend is appropriate for a curable defect. The order is concise and directly addresses the jurisdictional issue.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASHANDEEP SINGH, Case No.: 3:25-cv-3784-CAB-AHG 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Before the Court is Jashandeep Singh’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant 18 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1.] Having reviewed Mr. Singh’s petition, the Court finds 19 it deficient because he fails to name the proper respondent. [Id. at 1.] The proper 20 respondent is the warden of Otay Mesa Regional Detention Center. Currently, Petitioner 21 has not named any respondent. [Id.] Habeas petitioners “challenging their present physical 22 confinement [must] name their immediate custodian, the warden of the facility where they 23 are detained, as the respondent to their petition.” Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1197 24 (9th Cir. 2024). The Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over Mr. Singh’s petition so long 25 as he fails to name as respondent the warden of the detention facility where he is being 26 detained. 27 28 l Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES Mr. Singh’s petition with leave to amend to 2 ||include the warden of Otay Mesa Regional Detention Center as a respondent. Mr. Singh 3 ||shall have thirty days from the date of this order to file an amended petition for writ of 4 habeas corpus. Mr. Singh may be interested in contacting Federal Defenders of San Diego 5 ||to see if a Federal Defender can represent him in this matter. The telephone number for 6 || Federal Defenders’ San Diego Office is 619-234-8467 (Toll Free: 888-614-9867) and the 7 || El Centro Office is 760-335-3510 (Toll Free: 877-404-9063). 8 It is SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: January 7, 2026 □ Z 10 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28