Liliana De Los Angeles Cortes Ochoa v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) filed by a petitioner challenging her immigration detention via a habeas corpus petition. The court granted the IFP motion and set a briefing schedule and hearing date for the underlying petition.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP) granted“Since it is clear petitioner cannot afford the filing fee, her IFP request is granted.” | agree with court The petitioner demonstrated an inability to pay the $5 filing fee by stating she had $0.00 in wages and savings. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court must grant IFP status if the applicant demonstrates inability to pay. The court's finding that the petitioner cannot afford the fee is supported by the record cited in the order. |
Briefing schedule and hearing date set“So, petitioner’s traverse will be due April 28, 2026. Further, the Court sets a hearing on the petition for May 4, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.” | agree with court The court exercised its inherent authority to manage the docket and set deadlines for the habeas petition, adopting standard procedures from Chief Order No. 144. This is a procedural ruling within the court's discretion. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the statutory fee requirement and the necessity of IFP status to proceed. It relies on the petitioner's sworn statement of financial status to grant the motion, which is the correct legal standard. The procedural scheduling is standard for habeas cases in this district.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Liliana De Los Angeles CORTES Case No.: 26-cv-2284-AGS-DEB OCHOA, 4 ORDER SETTING BRIEFING Petitioner, 5 SCHEDULE AND GRANTING v. MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 6 PAUPERIS (ECF 2) WARDEN, Otay Mesa Detention Center, 7 et al., 8 Respondents. 9 10 11 Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging her 12 immigration detention. She also moves to proceed without paying the filing fee, known as 13 proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 14 Typically, parties seeking a writ of habeas corpus in a United States district court 15 must pay a $5 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). An action may proceed without payment 16 of fees only if the court grants the plaintiff leave to proceed IFP. See Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t 17 of the Interior, 73 F.4th 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2023) (holding that when an “IFP application is 18 denied altogether, Plaintiff’s case [cannot] proceed unless and until the fee[s] [a]re paid”). 19 Although the filing fee is only $5, petitioner claims to have “0.00” in wages and savings. 20 (ECF 2, at 1–2.) Since it is clear petitioner cannot afford the filing fee, her IFP request is 21 granted. 22 For this petition, the Court adopts the Standard Procedures from Chief Judge Order 23 No. 144. That Order is available on the court's website. So, petitioner’s traverse will be due 24 April 28, 2026. Further, the Court sets a hearing on the petition for May 4, 2026, at 25 2:00 p.m. Respondents’ counsel is responsible for coordinating petitioner’s participation 26 by videoconference or, if that’s unavailable, in person. 27 28 1 ||Dated: April 14, 2026 3 Hon. Andrew G. Schopler 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28