Erick Ivan Sanchez Licona v. Warden Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — The Government’s response must address the allegations in the Petition and must 3 |}include any documen
- 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 claiming unlawful detention without a bond determination. The court denied summary dismissal and ordered the Government to file a response by March 5, 2026, including specific information regarding class membership in a related case.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Summary dismissal of the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied.“Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for summary dismissal in habeas cases, which requires that allegations be vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous. The order indicates the petition met the threshold for proceeding to a response. |
The Government is ordered to file a response to the Petition.“The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than March 5, 2026.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural order following the denial of summary dismissal in a habeas case. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the standard for summary dismissal in habeas cases and applies it to the facts presented (or at least the lack of grounds for dismissal). It imposes a reasonable deadline and specific requirements for the government's response, including addressing a relevant class action.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERICK IVAN SANCHEZ LICONA, Case No. 26-cv-01108-BAS-SBC 12 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING THE 13 v. GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 14 WARDEN OTAY MESA DETENTION CORPUS (ECF No. 1) CENTER, 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner Erick Ivan Sanchez Licona 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. (See 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 5, 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 25, 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 a.