Benito Mariano Micha Angono v. Warden Jeremy Casey
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detained individual under 8 U.S.C. § 2241. The court dismissed the petition with leave to amend because it lacked basic information regarding the petitioner's immigration history.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition dismissed 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 order recites that the petition lacks basic information necessary to evaluate the claim, such as entry and detention details. Dismissing a habeas petition with leave to amend for failure to state a claim or provide necessary facts is a standard procedural mechanism in federal courts. The court cited Kourteva v. I.N.S. to support the proposition that summary dismissal is appropriate for vague or conclusory allegations. While the specific standard for § 2241 petitions is not explicitly detailed beyond the citation, the action is consistent with general federal practice for deficient pleadings. |
The order itself: sound — The order is brief but procedurally sound. It identifies the deficiency (missing basic immigration history facts) and provides a clear path for correction (amend within 30 days). The citation to Kourteva supports the authority to dismiss for vagueness/conclusory nature. It does not address specific legal merits because the factual predicate is missing, which is appropriate at this stage.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BENITO MARIANO MICHA ANGONO, Case No.: 3:26-cv-2313-CAB-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 14 WARDEN JEREMY CASEY, 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner Benito Mariano Micha Angono has filed a petition for a writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] 19 The Court DISMISSES the Petition with leave to amend because the Petition is 20 missing crucial information for the Court to evaluate whether a response is warranted. See 21 Kourteva v. I.N.S., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal is 22 appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably 23 incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”) In particular, the Petition does not provide basic 24 information on Petitioner’s immigration history, such as when or how he entered the United 25 States and when or how he was detained by immigration authorities. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 If Petitioner wishes to proceed with this case, he must file a First Amended Petition 2 || within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. The First Amended Petition must be 3 ||complete in itself without reference to the original Petition. Respondents not named and 4 ||any claim not re-alleged will be considered waived. See CivLR 15.1(a). 5 Itis SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: April 17, 2026 _ 8 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28