Deependra Bahadur Chhetri v. Warden of Imperial Regional Detention Facility, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition filed by a detained non-citizen alleging unlawful detention by ICE. The court dismissed the petition with leave to amend because the petition lacked crucial factual details necessary to evaluate the claims.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus with Leave to Amend“The Court DISMISSES the Petition with leave to amend because the Petition is missing crucial information for the Court to evaluate whether a response is warranted.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the petition failed to provide essential facts, such as the date of entry and specific details regarding the current detention or prior release. In habeas proceedings, particularly under 8 U.S.C. § 2241, a petitioner must provide sufficient factual basis for the court to determine if there is a cognizable claim. The cited authority, Kourteva v. I.N.S., supports summary dismissal when allegations are vague or conclusory. The court’s decision to allow amendment is consistent with procedural norms for pro se litigants and the nature of the deficiency (factual omission rather than legal insufficiency). |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It identifies specific deficiencies in the petition (missing dates, contradictory allegations regarding jurisdiction) and cites relevant district court precedent for the standard of summary dismissal. The remedy (leave to amend) is appropriate for a pro se petitioner whose failure is factual rather than legal. The order is concise but sufficient for its purpose.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DEEPENDRA BAHADUR CHHETRI, Case No.: 3:26-cv-1589-CAB-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 14 WARDEN OF IMPERIAL REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 Petitioner Deependra Bahadur Chhetri has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] Petitioner alleges that he is 20 unlawfully detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Imperial 21 Regional Detention Facility. [Id. at 2.] 22 The Court DISMISSES the Petition with leave to amend because the Petition is 23 missing crucial information for the Court to evaluate whether a response is warranted. See 24 Kourteva v. I.N.S., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal is 25 appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably 26 incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”) For example, Petitioner alleges that “Petitioner 27 entered the United States though at or near Calexico, California without inspection,” 28 [Petition at 10], but does not provide a date for this entrance or any specific details of his 1 ||subsequent release or most recent detention leading to this Petition. Further, Petitioner 2 |jalleges both that he received a custody redetermination hearing before an immigration 3 ||judge and was denied bond, and that immigration judges are denying custody 4 redetermination hearings based on lack of jurisdiction. [/d. at 11.] 5 If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must file a First Amended Petition 6 || within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The First Amended Petition must be 7 ||complete in itself without reference to the original Petition. Respondents not named and 8 || any claim not re-alleged will be considered waived. See CivLR 15.1(a). 9 Itis SO ORDERED. 10 Dated: March 13, 2026 12 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 3 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28