Ibrahim Lah v. Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Cathy Ann Bencivengo 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee alleging unconstitutional prolonged detention and challenging conditions of confinement. The court dismissed the petition with leave to amend, finding the detention had not yet become unconstitutionally prolonged and that the conditions claims were properly brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens rather than habeas corpus.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus with leave to amend“The Court thus DISMISSES the Petition for a writ of habeas corpus WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to allow Petitioner to file an Amended Petition in the event that his detention extends beyond a year.” | agree with court The court applied the *Banda* factors to determine if the detention was unconstitutionally prolonged. It found that the first factor (length of detention) weighed against the petitioner because he had only been detained for approximately seven months, which is less than the one-year threshold often cited in similar cases. The court also noted the petitioner failed to allege specific delays by the government or provide details on the status of his removal proceedings. Regarding the conditions of confinement, the court correctly identified that these are not cognizable in a habeas petition but must be brought in a civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or *Bivens*. The decision to dismiss with leave to amend is appropriate given the pro se status and the potential for the detention to exceed the one-year mark in the future. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the *Banda* factors to the specific facts presented, noting that seven months of detention is generally insufficient to establish an unconstitutional prolongation of detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b) without further evidence of government delay or other aggravating factors. It also correctly distinguishes between habeas claims (challenging the fact or duration of detention) and civil rights claims (challenging conditions of confinement), citing *Muhammad v. Close* and *Wilson v. Ponce*. The decision to dismiss with leave to amend is procedurally appropriate for a pro se litigant whose detention may eventually exceed the one-year threshold.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IBRAHIM LAH, Case No.: 3:26-cv-1784-CAB-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 14 WARDEN OF OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER, 15 [Doc. No. 1] Respondent. 16 17 18 Petitioner Ibrahim Lah, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se1, has filed a 19 petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] 20 Petitioner claims that he has been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement 21 (“ICE”) without a bond hearing since he entered the United States without inspection on 22 September 4, 2025. [Id. at 2, 6.] As explained in detail below, the Court DISMISSES the 23 Petition WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. 24 /// 25 26 1 Petitioner may be interested in contacting Federal Defenders of San Diego to see if a Federal Defender 27 can represent Petitioner in this matter. The telephone number for Federal Defenders’ San Diego Office is 619-234-8467 (Toll Free: 888-614-9867) and the El Centro Office is 760-335-3510 (Toll Free: 877-404- 28 1 A habeas petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that he is in illegal custody. 2 See Martinez v. Noem, No. 25-CV-2740-BJC-BJW, 2025 WL 3171738, at *2 (S.D. Cal. 3 Nov. 13, 2025). “If it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the 4 petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition[.]” 5 Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4; see also 6 Rule 1(b) (permitting court to apply Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to any “habeas 7 corpus petition”). Indeed, “district courts are expected to take ‘an active role in summarily 8 disposing of facially defective habeas petitions[.]’” Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 9 1065 (9th Cir. 2023) (citing Boyd v. Thompson, 147 F.3d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir. 1998)). 10 Given the Petitioner’s pro se status, the Court liberally construes the Petition as 11 stating a claim for a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment based on 12 his prolonged detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). [See Petition at 6 (“Ground One: My 13 prolonged detention.”).] In similar cases, this Court has used the Banda test as a 14 framework, which considers the following six factors: (1) the total length of detention to 15 date, which is the most important factor; (2) the likely duration of future detention; (3) the 16 conditions of detention; (4) delays in removal proceedings caused by the detainee; (5) 17 delays in removal proceedings caused by the government; and (6) the likelihood that the 18 removal proceedings will result in a final order of removal. Banda v. McAleenan, 385 F. 19 Supp. 3d 1099, 1106 (W.D. Wash. 2019). 20 Here, the first factor weighs heavily against Petitioner given that he has been 21 detained for approximately seven months. See Sibomana v. LaRose, No. 22-CV-933-LL- 22 NLS, 2023 WL 3028093, at *4 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2023) (highlighting that courts are 23 typically wary of continued custody without a bond hearing when detention extends 24 beyond one year). Moreover, Petitioner has not alleged any specific delays attributable to 25 Respondent, nor provided any details as to the status of his asylum case, such as the timing 26 or outcome of his calendar or merits hearings to date. The Court thus finds that Petitioner’s 27 continued detention under § 1225(b) has not become unconstitutionally prolonged and thus 28 dismisses the Petition without ordering a response. 1 Petitioner also challenges the conditions of his confinement, including the adequacy 2 || of his medical care, the facilities, and the food. [Petition at 6-7; Doc. No. 1-2 at 1.] Such 3 challenges may be brought in a civil action, usually under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens, not 4 ||as a habeas claim. Wilson v. Ponce, 465 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 1046 (C.D. Cal. 2020); 5 also Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 750 (2004) (“Challenges to the validity of any 6 confinement or to particulars affecting its duration are the province of habeas corpus... 7 [while] requests for relief turning on circumstances of confinement may be presented in a 8 ||§ 1983 action.”). 9 The Court thus DISMISSES the Petition for a writ of habeas corpus WITH LEAVE 10 || TO AMEND to allow Petitioner to file an Amended Petition in the event that his detention 11 |}extends beyond a year. 12 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. If an Amended Petition is filed, the 13 || Court will reopen the case. 14 Itis SO ORDERED. 15 || Dated: April 9, 2026 17 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28