Javier Hernandez Lopez v. Pamela Bondi, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Javier Hernandez Lopez filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 8 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his detention by ICE, but named the Attorney General rather than his immediate custodian. The court dismissed the petition with leave to amend, requiring the petitioner to name the warden or de facto warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Center as the respondent within 30 days.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed with leave to amend“Accordingly, the Petition will be DISMISSED with leave to amend.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the well-established legal principle that a habeas petitioner challenging present physical confinement must name the immediate custodian as the respondent. Because the petitioner named the Attorney General instead of the warden of the facility where he is held, the court lacked jurisdiction over the named respondent. Dismissing with leave to amend is the appropriate procedural remedy to allow the petitioner to correct this defect. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the jurisdictional defect (failure to name the immediate custodian) and cites the correct binding Ninth Circuit authority (Doe v. Garland) and statutory provision (28 U.S.C. § 2242). The remedy of dismissal with leave to amend is standard and appropriate. The instructions for amendment are clear and consistent with local rules.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAVIER HERNANDEZ LOPEZ, Case No.: 3:26-cv-0472-CAB-KSC 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 14 PAMELA BONDI, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 On January 26, 2026, Petitioner Javier Hernandez Lopez filed a petition for a writ 18 of habeas corpus pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”)]. Petitioner, who 19 is currently detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Otay Mesa 20 Detention Center in San Diego, California, contends ICE is unlawfully detaining him. [Id. 21 at 9–10]. However, the Petition must be dismissed with leave to amend because Petitioner 22 did not name the proper respondent. 23 When a habeas petitioner challenges his present physical confinement, he must name 24 as respondent the warden of the facility where the prisoner is held, not the Attorney General 25 or some other supervisory official. Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1194–95 (9th Cir. 26 2024) (holding district court’s exercise of jurisdiction erroneous where petitioner failed to 27 name his immediate custodian as respondent to his petition); 28 U.S.C. § 2242. Here, 28 because Petitioner failed to name his immediate custodian—the warden or de facto warden 1 |}of Otay Mesa Detention Center—as respondent, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the 2 || Petition. Accordingly, the Petition will be DISMISSED with leave to amend. 3 If Petitioner wishes to reopen this case, he must file a First Amended Petition within 4 || thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The First Amended Petition shall name as the 5 ||Respondent the person having immediate custody over Petitioner, namely the warden or 6 || de facto warden of the facility where he is detained. Petitioner must identify his immediate 7 || custodian by name, not simply by title. Moreover, Plaintiffs amended petition must be 8 ||complete in itself without reference to his original pleading. Defendants not named and 9 claim not re-alleged in the amended complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. 10 || Cal. CivLR 15.1(a). 11 Itis SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: January 29, 2026 14 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28