Wilmar Eduardo Ramos Ixcotoyac v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Wilmar Ramos Ixcotoyac filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from immigration detention, naming only U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as the respondent. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice for failure to name the immediate custodian, allowing the petitioner to file an amended petition by February 23, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without Prejudice“So, the petition must be dismissed, but Ramos Ixcotoyac may file an amended petition remedying that defect.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the 'immediate custodian' rule, which requires habeas petitions to name the person with physical custody of the petitioner. By naming only the agency (ICE) rather than the specific warden or custodian, the petition was procedurally defective. Dismissing without prejudice is the appropriate remedy to allow the petitioner to correct the error. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly applies binding Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent to the specific procedural defect in the petition. It correctly identifies the legal requirement and provides a clear path for correction.
Opinion
I UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 || Wilmar Eduardo RAMOS IXCOTOYAC, Case No.: 26-cv-0482-AGS-DDL 4 Petitioner,’ QRDER DISMISSING PETITION 5 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE 6 U.S. IMMIGRATION and CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE), 7 Respondent. 8 9 Petitioner Wilmar Ramos Ixcotoyac seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 10 || § 2241 to free him from immigration detention. But his petition fails to name the proper 11 ||respondent. Petitions for habeas corpus must name as a respondent “the person who has 12 || custody over” the petitioner. “T]he default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden 13 || of the facility where the prisoner is being held[.]” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 14 || (2004); see also Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1199 (9th Cir. 2024) (“affirm[ing] the 15 application of the immediate custodian” rule to “habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 16 |/U.S.C. § 2241, including those filed by immigrant detainees” and ruling a district court 17 cannot consider a misnamed petition). Ramos Ixcotoyac only names “U.S. Immigration 18 |/and Customs Enforcement (ICE)” as a respondent. (ECF 1, at 1.) So, the petition must be 19 || dismissed, but Ramos Ixcotoyac may file an amended petition remedying that defect. Any 20 || amended petition is due February 23, 2026. 21 ||Dated: January 29, 2026 23 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28 ]