Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILSON HERNAN QUINALOA, Case No.: 3:26-cv-02067-RBM-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER, 15 Respondent. [Doc. 1]

16 17 18 On April 1, 2026, Petitioner Erick Esau Osorio Nova (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro 19 se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”). (Doc. 20 1.) For the reasons below, the Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 21 I. DISCUSSION 22 The Court must first screen habeas corpus petitions to determine whether they are 23 subject to summary dismissal. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 24 States District Courts R. 4 (2019) [hereinafter “Habeas Rules”]; see Lainez Flores v. 25 Warden, Case No.: 26-cv-168-JES-VET, 2026 WL 213516, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2026) 26 (“A habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is subject to the same screening 27 requirements that apply to those brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”). Summary dismissal 28 is appropriate where “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached 1 exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,” Habeas Rule 4, or 2 “where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory.” Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. 3 Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citation omitted). 4 To survive screening , the petitioner need only make out a claim that is sufficiently 5 “cognizable” to warrant a return or answer from the government. See Neiss v. Bludworth, 6 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). A petition from a litigant representing 7 himself is held to “less stringent standards” than a petition drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. 8 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). But 9 pro se litigants still “must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants,” 10 such as satisfying the habeas screening requirements. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 11 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 12 925 (9th Cir. 2012). The dismissal does not bar the petitioner from seeking habeas relief 13 in the future. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 8 (1963). 14 As a preliminary matter, Petitioner has not named the warden of the detention center 15 where he is being held. “[I]n habeas challenges to present physical confinement—‘core 16 challenges’—the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility 17 where the [petitioner] is being held, not the Attorney General or some other remote 18 supervisory official.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004). A petitioner’s 19 “failure to name the Facility Administrator [or warden] renders the district court's exercise 20 of jurisdiction erroneous.” Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1194–95 (9th Cir. 2024); see 21 also Cruz Banos v. Alberran, No. 1:25-cv-01634-DC-CSK (HC), 2025 WL 3312510, at 22 *1–2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 28, 2025) (finding the court lacked jurisdiction over a § 2241 petition 23 where the petitioner failed to “name as a respondent the warden of the facility where he is 24 detained”). Because Petitioner represents he is detained at the Otay Mesa Detention 25 Center, he must include the warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Center as a named 26 respondent in order to proceed with this case. 27 Additionally, Petitioner states he was taken into immigration custody on March 14, 28 2026, and that “no decision has been made on [his] case.” (Doc. 1 at 3–4, 7.) Petitioner 1 || requests “a redetermination of [his] detention” or his “immediate release with the lowest 2 ||minimum payment.” (/d. at 4, 7, 11.) However, Petitioner does not present a claim that 3 || would entitle him to relief, such as violation of a statute, the Fifth Amendment’s Due 4 || Process Clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act, or the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 Petitioner also fails to allege any facts that support his entitlement to habeas relief. 6 || Petitioner provides no facts regarding his immigration status, when and where he entered 7 ||the United States, how long he has resided in the country, the status of his immigration 8 || proceedings, whether he has already requested or received a bond hearing, whether he was 9 || previously detained by Respondent and released on parole, or whether he is subject to 10 |}mandatory detention. Without this information, the Court cannot determine whether 11 Petitioner is entitled to habeas relief. As the Petition fails to meet the screening 12 ||requirements for a habeas petition, summary dismissal is required.! 13 Il. CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons above, the Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT 15 || PREJUDICE. Petitioner may file an amended petition addressing the issues identified 16 ||above on or before April 29, 2026. The amended petition must be complete in itself and 17 not reference or incorporate any other prior filings. Failure to file an amended petition 18 or before April 29, 2026, may result in dismissal of this action. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ||DATE: April 6, 2026 RA Bormdes Mptargy 9 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 ' Petitioner may be interested in contacting Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. to see if a Federal Defender can represent Petitioner in this matter.