Alejandro Diego Castro v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Alejandro Diego Castro filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking release from immigration detention, alleging he was detained in November 2025 without federal charges. The court dismissed the petition for failure to state a cognizable claim but granted leave to amend by March 27, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of petition for writ of habeas corpus“So, the petition must be dismissed, but the Court grants Castro Diego leave to amend provide additional information and identify the violation he asserts makes his detention unlawful.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for summary dismissal of habeas petitions, which requires that the petition plainly appear that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The petition failed to identify any specific constitutional or statutory violation, merely stating facts of detention and personal circumstances. Dismissing with leave to amend is appropriate when a pro se petitioner fails to articulate a legal basis for relief but may be able to do so with more information. |
Grant of leave to amend“the Court grants Castro Diego leave to amend provide additional information and identify the violation he asserts makes his detention unlawful. Any amended petition is due March 27, 2026.” | agree with court Granting leave to amend is consistent with the liberal construction of pro se pleadings and the low threshold for summary dismissal in habeas cases. The court identified the specific deficiency (failure to identify the violation) and provided a reasonable deadline. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the applicable legal standard for summary dismissal of a habeas petition under § 2241. It accurately notes that the petition failed to identify any specific constitutional or statutory violation, which is a necessary element of a cognizable habeas claim. The court appropriately cited Neiss v. Bludworth for the proposition that while the bar for summary dismissal is low, a petition with potential merit should not be dismissed. The decision to dismiss with leave to amend is procedurally sound and consistent with the treatment of pro se litigants. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for the procedural posture.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Alejandro DIEGO CASTRO, Case No.: 26-cv-1387-AGS-DEB 4 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 5 v. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 6 WARDEN, Otay Mesa Detention Center, 7 Respondent. 8 9 10 Petitioner Alejandro Diego Castro seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. 11 § 2241 to free him from immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a 12 claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant an answer or return. See Rules Governing 13 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary 14 dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner 15 is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules Governing Section 16 2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules 17 permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 18 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any 19 potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id. 20 Unfortunately for Diego Castro, his petition does not meet this low bar. He claims 21 to have been “detained on November 3, 2025, while purchasing gas at a gas station in San 22 Diego” and that he has remained “in custody despite having no federal charges filed against 23 him.” (ECF 1, at 1.) Other than that, the only facts in his petition are that he has “[s]trong 24 family ties in the United States” and claims to be “[n]o danger to the community and no 25 risk of flight” while he “is in the process of resolving his immigration matters.” (Id. at 2.) 26 But none of that on its own suggests he is “in custody in violation of the constitution or 27 law or treaties of the United States,” much less identifies any such violation. See 28 U.S.C. 28 § 2241(c)(3). 1 So, the petition must be dismissed, but the Court grants Castro Diego leave to amend 2 provide additional information and identify the violation he asserts makes his detention 3 ||unlawful. Any amended petition is due March 27, 2026. 4 || Dated: March 6, 2026 6 Hon. rew G. Schopler 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28