Jesus Alfredo Requene Ydrogo v. Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — The Government’s response must address the allegations in the Petition and must 3 |}include any documents r
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an ICE detainee alleging unlawful detention without a bond determination. The court declined to dismiss the petition summarily and ordered the government to file a response by March 4, 2026, including specific information regarding the petitioner's status in a related class action.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of summary dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Kourteva v. INS, which permits summary dismissal only when allegations are vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous. The court determined the petition did not meet this threshold. While the order does not explicitly detail why the allegations are not 'vague or conclusory,' the decision to proceed to a response is a standard procedural step in habeas litigation when the initial pleading is facially sufficient. The court correctly identified that a § 2241 petition requires a response from the respondent to establish the facts of detention. |
Ordering the Government to file a response“The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than March 4, 2026.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural order following the denial of a motion to dismiss or summary dismissal in a habeas case. The deadline provided (approx. 8 days) is short but within the court's discretion to manage the docket, particularly in detention cases where speed is often required. The requirement to address the class certification issue in Maldonado Bautista v. Noem is a specific factual inquiry relevant to the petitioner's legal status and potential relief. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the low threshold for summary dismissal in habeas cases by citing Kourteva. It recognizes that the petitioner's claim of unlawful detention without bond is a cognizable issue under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 that requires the government to respond with facts. The specific instruction to address the class action status is a practical and legally relevant step to resolve the petitioner's status efficiently. There are no significant gaps in the reasoning for this preliminary procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JESUS ALFREDO REQUENE Case No. 26-cv-01109-BAS-BLM YDROGO, 12 ORDER REQUIRING THE Petitioner, 13 GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND TO v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 14 CORPUS (ECF No. 1) OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner Jesus Alfredo Requene Ydrogo filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner is self-represented. He claims he 20 is being unlawfully detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement without a bond 21 determination. (Id.) 22 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted 23 at this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 24 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 25 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order the 26 Government to respond to the Petition. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 27 28 1 1. The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than March 4, 2 ||2026. The Government’s response must address the allegations in the Petition and must 3 |}include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition. 4 || The Government must also address whether Petitioner is a member of the class certified in 5 Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. 6 || Cal. Dec. 18, 2025). 7 2. No reply by Petitioner is necessary unless requested by the Court. 8 3. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 9 || Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order. 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 12 || DATED: February 24, 2026 yatta Bahar 13 H¢én. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 4 United States District Court 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9_