Cristobal Esteban Mateo v. Christopher J LaRose, Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Cristobal Esteban Mateo filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his immigration detention as prolonged and citing poor conditions of confinement. The court dismissed the petition, finding that the allegations did not establish that the petitioner was in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed“Accordingly, the Petition is DISMISSED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for summary dismissal under Habeas Rule 4, which allows dismissal if it plainly appears from the face of the petition that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. The petitioner's allegations regarding the length of detention and conditions of confinement do not, on their face, demonstrate a violation of the Constitution or federal law sufficient to warrant habeas relief under § 2241. The court's reliance on the statutory burden of proof and the procedural rule for summary dismissal is legally sound. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct and legally sound. It correctly identifies the applicable statute (§ 2241), the burden of proof, and the procedural mechanism for summary dismissal (Habeas Rule 4). The court's conclusion that the petition fails on its face is supported by the recited allegations, which do not articulate a constitutional or statutory violation. The citation to Lane v. Feather provides appropriate Ninth Circuit authority for applying Rule 4 to § 2241 cases.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CRISTOBAL ESTEBAN MATEO, Case No.: 26-cv-3280-RSH-BJW 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 CHRISTOPHER J LaROSE, Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center, 15 Respondent. 16 17 On May 28, 2026, petitioner Cristobal Esteban Mateo filed a petition for writ of 18 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. 19 Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 2241, provides that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may 20 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 21 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). A detainee bears the 22 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 23 treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 24 Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts (the “Habeas Rules”) requires summary 25 dismissal of a federal habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any 26 attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” See also 27 Habeas Rule 1(b) (permitting district courts to apply Habeas Rules to Section 2241 habeas 28 1 || proceedings); Lane v. Feather, 584 F. App’x 843, 843 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district 2 ||court’s application of Habeas Rule 4 to dismiss Section 2241 petition). 3 Petitioner challenges his immigration proceedings as “prolonged.” ECF No. | at 2. 4 || He states that he was taken into immigration custody on February 13, 2026. Jd. at 6. He 5 || further states that on March 5, 2026, he received a bond hearing, but the immigration judge 6 denied bond on the grounds of risk of flight. Jd. He complains of sleeplessness, dizziness, 7 || stomach pain, dirty utensils, unfiltered water, and a poor diet while in custody, and states 8 he continues to wait for an appointment with a psychologist. /d. 9 Petitioner has not alleged facts and/or a legal theory sufficient to establish that “[h]e 10 |/is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 11 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It plainly appears from the face of the Petition that Petitioner is not 12 entitled to habeas relief at this time. Accordingly, the Petition is DISMISSED. The Clerk 13 || of Court is directed to close the case. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. . Dated: June 2, 2026 /Dhut ¢ [mer 7 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28