Daymon Eliud Gutierrez-Arauz v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- writ denied — the Petition is DISMISSED without 18 prejudice.
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court screened a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an individual detained by ICE and found it failed to state a cognizable claim or provide necessary factual details. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice and granted the petitioner until April 27, 2026, to file an amended petition.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prejudice“For the reasons above, the Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.” | agree with court The court applied the screening requirements of Habeas Rule 4, which permits summary dismissal when the face of the petition shows the petitioner is not entitled to relief or the allegations are vague. The order recites that the petitioner failed to allege specific legal violations (statute, Due Process, INA, APA) or necessary facts (entry date, residence, bond status, mandatory detention status). Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a habeas petition must present a cognizable claim to survive screening. Because the petition was conclusory and lacked factual support for any legal theory, dismissal without prejudice was the appropriate procedural mechanism to allow the petitioner to cure the deficiencies. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the screening standard for habeas petitions under Habeas Rule 4. It accurately cites Ninth Circuit and Supreme Court authority regarding the cognizability requirement and the procedural obligations of pro se litigants. The court identifies specific deficiencies in the petition (lack of legal theory and factual details) that prevent it from determining entitlement to relief. The dismissal without prejudice is the standard remedy for a petition that fails screening but has potential merit if amended. The reasoning is complete and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 DAYMON ELIUD GUTIERREZ- Case No.: 3:26-cv-02082-RBM-VET ARAUZ, 9 ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT Petitioner, 10 PREJUDICE PETITION FOR v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 11 WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION 12 [Doc. 1] CENTER, 13 Respondent. 14 15 On April 2, 2026, Petitioner Daymon Eliud Gutierrez-Arauz (“Petitioner”), 16 proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 17 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) For the reasons below, the Petition is DISMISSED without 18 prejudice. 19 I. DISCUSSION 20 The Court must screen habeas corpus petitions to determine whether they are subject 21 to summary dismissal. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States 22 District Courts R. 4 (2019) [hereinafter “Habeas Rules”]; see Lainez Flores v. Warden, 23 Case No.: 26-cv-168-JES-VET, 2026 WL 213516, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2026) (“A 24 habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is subject to the same screening 25 requirements that apply to those brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”). Summary dismissal 26 is appropriate where “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached 27 exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,” Habeas Rule 4, or 28 “where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory.” Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. 1 Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citation omitted). 2 To survive screening , the petitioner need only make out a claim that is sufficiently 3 “cognizable” to warrant a return or answer from the government. See Neiss v. Bludworth, 4 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). A petition from a litigant representing 5 himself is held to “less stringent standards” than a petition drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. 6 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). But 7 pro se litigants still “must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants,” 8 such as satisfying the habeas screening requirements. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 9 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 10 925 (9th Cir. 2012). The dismissal does not bar the petitioner from seeking habeas relief 11 in the future. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 8 (1963). 12 In this case, Petitioner represents that he was detained on November 17, 2025, “has 13 been detained without trial or conviction,” and “does not pose a danger to the community 14 nor a flight risk.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) He seeks “immediate release from ICE custody while his 15 immigration proceedings continue.” (Id.) However, Petitioner does not present a claim 16 that would entitle him to relief, such as violation of a statute, the Fifth Amendment’s Due 17 Process Clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act, or the Administrative Procedure Act. 18 Petitioner also does not allege any facts that support his entitlement to habeas relief. 19 Petitioner provides no facts regarding when and where he entered the United States, how 20 long he has resided in the country, the status of his immigration proceedings, whether he 21 has received a bond hearing, whether he was previously detained by Respondent and 22 released on parole, or whether he is subject to mandatory detention. Without this 23 information, the Court cannot determine whether Petitioner is entitled to habeas relief. As 24 the Petition fails to meet the screening requirements for a habeas petition, summary 25 dismissal is required.1 26 27 1 Petitioner may be interested in contacting Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. to see if 28 I Il. CONCLUSION 2 For the reasons above, the Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 3 || Petitioner may file an amended petition addressing the issues identified above on or before 4 || April 27, 2026. The amended petition must be complete in itself and may not reference or 5 ||incorporate any other prior filings. Failure to file an amended petition on or before 6 || April 27, 2026, may result in dismissal of this action. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || DATE: April 3, 2026 FR trormus, Mpatgge 10 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28