Ali Antonio Perez Oropeza v. Christopher Larose
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging the petitioner's custody. The court dismissed the petition because the petitioner failed to demonstrate that his custody was in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus“Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES the petition.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the burden of proof required for a § 2241 petition. The petitioner's allegations were conclusory and lacked the necessary factual details (such as entry date, country of origin, or specific legal violations) to establish that his detention was unlawful. Dismissing the petition for failure to state a claim or failure to meet the burden of proof is consistent with the cited authorities and the record presented. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the statutory basis for the petition, the burden of proof, and the standard for construing pro se filings. It then applies these standards to the specific, albeit sparse, facts alleged by the petitioner to reach a defensible conclusion that the petition fails on its face. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning provided for this specific dismissal.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALI ANTONIO PEREZ OROPEZA, Case No.: 3:25-cv-3775-CAB-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING HABEAS 13 v. PETITION 14 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, 15 Respondent. 16 17 Before the Court is Petitioner Ali Antonio Perez Oropeza’s amended petition for 18 writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 5.] Petitioner is proceeding 19 pro se, so the Court construes his petition liberally. See Roy v. Lampert, 465 F.3d 964, 970 20 (9th Cir. 2006). 21 A writ of habeas corpus challenges the legality of a petitioner’s custody and seeks 22 to secure release from that illegal custody. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, a district court may 23 grant a writ of habeas corpus when the petitioner “is in custody in violation of the 24 Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” The petitioner bears the burden of 25 demonstrating that he is in illegal custody. See Martinez v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2740- 26 BJCBJW, 2025 WL 3171738, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2025). 27 Even construing his petition liberally, Petitioner fails to carry his burden to show he 28 is in illegal custody. He writes only that he “was taken into custody in the hallway of the 1 || courthouse[,]” that he had a “valid worker’s permit and social security[,]” and that he has 2 “A# with [USCIS].” [Doc. No. 5 at 4-5.] Petitioner does not discuss how his detention 3 unlawful nor provide any basic details like when he entered the United States, where he 4 from, or any previous interactions with immigration authorities. Accordingly, the Court 5 || DISMISSES the petition. 6 It is SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: January 23, 2026 □ Z 8 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo ? United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28