Fuad Abdulielil Ahmed v. Sixto Marrero
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — The Government’s response must address the allegations in the Petition and must 6 incl
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by a detainee alleging that his detention by ICE violated the Fifth Amendment. The court declined to dismiss the petition summarily and ordered the government to file a response, set a deadline for a reply, and schedule a hearing.
| 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 summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Kourteva v. INS, which requires that allegations be vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous to warrant summary dismissal. The order states that the petition does not meet this threshold, which is a defensible procedural determination based on the cited authority. The court did not reach the merits of the Fifth Amendment claim. |
Ordering the Government to file a response to the Petition“The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than March 4, 2026.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural step in habeas corpus litigation following the denial of a motion to dismiss or summary dismissal. It follows logically from the court's decision to proceed to a hearing. |
Setting a hearing on the Petition“The parties must appear in Courtroom 12B on March 13, 2026, at 11:30 a.m. for a hearing on the Petition.” | agree with court Scheduling a hearing is within the court's discretion and is appropriate given that the petition was not dismissed. The specific date and time are procedural details. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a short, procedural ruling that correctly applies the cited standard for summary dismissal. It does not address the merits of the constitutional claim, which is appropriate at this stage. The reasoning is sufficient for the procedural decision made.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FUAD ABDULIELIL AHMED, Case No. 26-cv-01170-BAS-MMP 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) REQUIRING THE 14 SIXTO MARRERO, GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND 15 Respondent. TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1); 16 AND 17 (2) SETTING HEARING ON 18 PETITION 19 20 21 Petitioner Fuad Abdulielil Ahmed filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) In his Petition, Petitioner claims that he is 23 being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in violation of the Fifth 24 Amendment. (Id.) 25 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 26 this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 27 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 28 1 || palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order the 2 ||Government to respond to the Petition and set a hearing. 3 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 4 1. The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than March 4, 5 ||2026. The Government’s response must address the allegations in the Petition and must 6 include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition. 7 2. Petitioner may file a reply in support of his Petition no later than March 11, 8 2026. 9 3. The parties must appear in Courtroom 12B on March 13, 2026, at 11:30 a.m. 10 || for a hearing on the Petition. 11 4. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 12 || Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 || DATED: February 25, 2026 (atta Bahar 16 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 7 United States District Court 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28