TOWFIQ HEKMAT HEKMAT v. IMPERIAL REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se habeas petition and motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed by an immigration detainee, noting that the IFP application was blank and the petition lacked substantive allegations. The court denied the IFP motion and ordered the petitioner to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for failure to pay the filing fee and failure to state a claim.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis Denied“Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.)” | agree with court The court correctly applied the local rule requiring a completed affidavit with a statement of assets. The record explicitly states the form was 'entirely blank other than Petitioner’s signature, containing no financial information whatsoever.' Denial is the only procedural option when the statutory and local requirements for IFP status are not met. |
Order to Show Cause Regarding Dismissal“Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should not be dismissed for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement or for failure to provide sufficient allegations concerning Petitioner’s detention.” | agree with court The court identified two independent grounds for dismissal: failure to pay the filing fee (or qualify for IFP) and failure to state a claim due to the petition being 'blank other than a few boxes checked.' Ordering a show cause hearing is a standard procedural mechanism to allow a pro se litigant to cure these defects before dismissal, particularly in habeas cases where the court has an obligation to provide notice of deficiencies. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the failure to comply with local rules for IFP status and the substantive failure to state a claim due to the lack of allegations. The citation to Kourteva, while from a different district (N.D. Cal.), is persuasive authority for the proposition that blank or conclusory petitions are subject to dismissal. The court appropriately provided the petitioner with an opportunity to cure the defects before dismissal.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOWFIQ HEKMAT HEKMAT, Case No. 26-cv-1152-BAS-SBC A249141221, 12 ORDER: Petitioner, 13 v. (1) DENYING MOTION TO 14 PROCEED IN FORMA IMPERIAL REGIONAL DETENTION 15 PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2), AND FACILITY, et al., 16 Respondents. (2) REQUIRING PETITIONER 17 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE 18 DISMISSED 19 20 Petitioner Towfiq Hekmat Hekmat, an immigration detainee housed at the Imperial 21 Regional Detention Center in Calexico, California, proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition 22 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, accompanied by a Motion 23 proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1–2. 24 A request to proceed in forma pauperis must include a completed affidavit with a 25 statement of all assets showing an inability to pay the $5.00 filing fee. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 26 3.2. The Southern District of California has a standardized application to proceed in forma 27 pauperis, which requires a detailed accounting of income and expenses signed by the 28 requestor. While Petitioner has submitted that form, it is entirely blank other than | || Petitioner’s signature, containing no financial information whatsoever. Petitioner has not 2 ||submitted a completed application with a statement of all assets in accordance with this 3 || district’s application. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma 4 || pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) 5 Because the Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee 6 has qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, this case is subject to dismissal without 7 || prejudice. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2; see also R. 1(b), 3(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 8 || Cases (2019). 9 In addition, the Court has reviewed the Petition, and it is blank other than a few 10 boxes checked. (See ECF No. 1.) This means that even if Petitioner pays the $5.00 filing 11 || fee, the Court does not have enough information for this case to proceed. See Kourteva v. 12 || 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (noting a petition is subject to summary 13 || dismissal if it is vague or conclusory). 14 Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should 15 |/not be dismissed for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement or for failure to provide 16 || sufficient allegations concerning Petitioner’s detention. To avoid dismissal of this habeas 17 || case, Petitioner must, no later than March 18, 2026: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee OR (2) 18 ||}submit adequate proof of Petitioner’s inability to pay the fee. Further, Petitioner should 19 || fill out a new petition form and provide as much information as possible, including 20 |/information about his immigration case and when he was detained by immigration 21 || authorities. Otherwise, this case will be summarily dismissed for lack of sufficient 22 ||information. 23 For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order (1) a blank 24 || application to proceed in forma pauperis and (2) a blank petition for writ of habeas corpus 25 ||under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 DATED: February 25, 2026 yatta Bahar Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge