Nayade Maceo Aguilera v. The City of Holtville, CA, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Petitioner alleges that “[a]t the time of her 2 ||detention on July 29, 2025, Petitioner’s parole remained valid and in effect through 3 || D
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Nayade Maceo Aguilera, an ICE detainee, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her detention and seeking release or a bond hearing. The court dismissed the petition with leave to amend because the petitioner failed to name the warden of the detention facility as a respondent, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2243.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with Leave to Amend“Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that under 28 U.S.C. § 2243, a habeas petition must be directed to the custodian (warden) of the facility where the petitioner is detained. The order recites that the petitioner named the City of Holtville, ICE officials, and the Attorney General, but did not name the warden of the Imperial Regional Detention Center. Citing Mukhamadiev v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, the court concluded it lacked jurisdiction. 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 order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the jurisdictional requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2243, which mandates that the immediate custodian be named. The reliance on Mukhamadiev, a recent decision from the same district, provides direct support for the jurisdictional bar. The decision to grant leave to amend is appropriate and consistent with Ninth Circuit practice for curable defects in habeas petitions. The order does not reach the merits of the due process or parole claims, which is correct given the threshold jurisdictional defect.
Opinion
1 y 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NAYADE MACEO AGUILERA, Case No.: 26cv532-LL-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 14 THE CITY OF HOLTVILLE, CA, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner Nayade Maceo Aguilera is a detainee in the custody of the U.S. 19 Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On January 20 28, 2026, she filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF 21 No. 1 (“Pet.”). Petitioner brings this action against the following Respondents: The City of 22 Holtville, CA, owner of the Imperial Regional Detention Center, Daniel A. Brightman, 23 Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement San Diego Field Office, Todd 24 Lyons, acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kristi Noem, 25 Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Pam Bondi, U.S. Attorney 26 General. Id. 27 Petitioner is a citizen of Cuba who was paroled into the United States on December 28 23, 2024, with her parole continuing through December 21, 2026. Id. ¶ 3. Petitioner was 1 detained by ICE on July 29, 2025. /d. 9§ 3. Petitioner alleges that “[a]t the time of her 2 ||detention on July 29, 2025, Petitioner’s parole remained valid and in effect through 3 || December 21, 2026, and she had received no revocation of parole and, to her knowledge, 4 ||no revocation of parole was issued prior to her July 29, 2025 detention.” Jd. ¥ 3. Petitioner 5 alleges that her detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the 6 || applicable parole statutes and regulations including 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) and 8 C.F.R. 7 || § 212.5(e). Id. J] 46-66. She seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing Respondents to release 8 || her from custody or in the alternative order an individualized bond hearing. /d. at 16-17. 9 As a threshold matter, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to name the warden 10 || of the facility where she is detained, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Therefore, the Court 11 ||lacks jurisdiction to hear the Petition. See Mukhamadiev v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland 12 || Security, No. 25-cv-1017-DMS-MSB, 2025 WL1208913, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2025) 13 C‘[T]he Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over [petitioner’s] Petition so long as he fails to 14 || name as respondent the warden of the detention facility where he is being detained.’’). 15 Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of 16 || Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Within thirty 30) days of 17 || entry of this Order, Petitioner may file an amended petition curing the deficiencies noted 18 || above. If Plaintiff fails to amend within the time provided, the Court will enter a final order 19 || dismissing this civil action. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 ||Dated: January 28, 2026 NO 22 DE | 3 Honorable Linda Lopez 54 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28