Adwin Jeovany HERNANDEZ FIGUEROA v. Christopher LaROSE, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) in a habeas corpus petition challenging immigration detention. The court granted the motion, discharged the order to show cause, and set a schedule for the answer, reply, and oral argument.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF 4) granted“The IFP request is GRANTED, and the order to show cause (ECF 2) is discharged.” | agree with court The order recites that the petitioner claims to have no checking or savings account. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a prisoner or detainee may proceed IFP if they cannot afford the filing fee. The court's reliance on the petitioner's declaration of indigency is consistent with the statutory requirements for granting IFP status in a habeas case. |
Order to Show Cause (ECF 2) discharged“The IFP request is GRANTED, and the order to show cause (ECF 2) is discharged.” | agree with court The order to show cause was likely issued to determine if the petitioner could pay the fee. Since the IFP motion was granted, the need for the order to show cause is moot, and discharging it is the correct procedural step. |
Scheduling order for answer, reply, and hearing set“So, respondents’ answer is due May 1, 2026, and petitioner’s reply is due May 8, 2026. The Court sets oral argument for May 11, 2026, at 11:00 a.m.” | agree with court The court has broad discretion to set schedules for pending cases. The dates provided allow for a reasonable period for the government to respond and for the petitioner to reply, followed by a hearing. This is a standard procedural ruling. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the statutory framework for IFP proceedings in habeas cases. It cites the relevant statute for the fee and a recent Ninth Circuit case for the consequence of denial. The decision to grant IFP based on the petitioner's declaration of indigency is supported by the record recited in the order. The scheduling provisions are within the court's discretion.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 Adwin Jeovany HERNANDEZ Case No.: 26-cv-2076-AGS-VET FIGUEROA, 5 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR Petitioner, 6 LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA v. PAUPERIS (ECF 4), DISCHARGING 7 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF 2), Christopher LaROSE, et al., 8 AND SETTING HEARING Respondents. 9 10 11 Petitioner seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his 12 immigration detention, and he moves to proceed without paying the filing fee—known as 13 proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Typically, parties seeking a writ of habeas corpus 14 must pay a $5 filing fee. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). But an action may proceed without 15 payment if the court grants leave to proceed IFP. See Hymas v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 16 73 F.4th 763, 765 (9th Cir. 2023) (holding that when an “IFP application is denied 17 altogether, Plaintiff’s case [cannot] proceed unless and until the fee[s] [a]re paid”). 18 Although the filing fee is only $5, petitioner claims to have “[n]o” checking account or 19 savings. (ECF 4, at 2). The IFP request is GRANTED, and the order to show cause (ECF 2) 20 is discharged. 21 For this petition, the Court adopts the Standard Procedures from Chief Judge Order 22 No. 144. So, respondents’ answer is due May 1, 2026, and petitioner’s reply is due May 8, 23 2026. The Court sets oral argument for May 11, 2026, at 11:00 a.m. Respondents’ counsel 24 is responsible for coordinating petitioner’s in-person participation. And in its answer, 25 respondents’ counsel must notify the Court as to whether petitioner will require an 26 interpreter at the hearing and, if so, which language. 27 28 1 Dated: April 24, 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