Pouchon Francique v. Warden
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
The court considered a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee alleging that the immigration judge erred in finding him a flight risk. The court dismissed the petition because the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies by appealing to the Board of Immigration Appeals and did not establish that his custody violated the Constitution or federal law.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed“Petition is DISMISSED.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the exhaustion doctrine as articulated in Leonardo v. Crawford, which holds that a petitioner must appeal an adverse bond determination to the BIA before seeking federal habeas review. The order notes that the petition contains only conclusory allegations of error regarding a flight risk determination, which is a matter for administrative appeal rather than immediate federal habeas relief. Additionally, the court noted this is the petitioner's fourth such petition, with a prior one still pending, further supporting dismissal under the principle that federal courts should not interfere with pending administrative proceedings. |
The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the legal standard for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and applies the exhaustion doctrine from Leonardo v. Crawford, a binding Ninth Circuit precedent, to dismiss the petition. The court also appropriately cites Habeas Rule 4 for summary dismissal. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural dismissal based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies and lack of a valid legal basis for immediate release.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 POUCHON FRANCIQUE, Case No.: 26-cv-3531-RSH-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
14 WARDEN,
15 Respondent. 16 17 On June 12, 2026, petitioner Pouchon Francique filed a petition for writ of habeas 18 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. On June 18, 2026, the 19 action was transferred to the undersigned. ECF No. 3. 20 Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 2241, provides that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may 21 be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit 22 judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). A detainee bears the 23 burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or 24 treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing 25 Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts (the “Habeas Rules”) requires summary 26 dismissal of a federal habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any 27 attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” See also 28 1 || Habeas Rule 1(b) (permitting district courts to apply Habeas Rules to Section 2241 habeas 2 || proceedings); Lane v. Feather, 584 F. App’x 843, 843 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district 3 || court’s application of Habeas Rule 4 to dismiss Section 2241 petition). 4 This action is Petitioner’s fourth immigration habeas petition that has been assigned 5 ||to the undersigned. See also Case Nos. 26-cv-1126, 26-cv-2304, 26-cv-2722. The most 6 recent of these prior petitions, 26-cv-2722, remains pending. 7 The current Petition requests Petitioner’s release, but does not provide an adequate 8 || legal basis for such relief. Petitioner alleges only in conclusory terms that the immigration 9 judge erred in determining that he was a flight risk. ECF No. 1-2 at 1. However, the relief 10 || for such a claim of error is generally an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. See 11 ||Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Here, [the petitioner] 12 || pursued habeas review of the IJ’s adverse bond determination before appealing to the BIA. 13 || This short cut was improper. Leonardo should have exhausted administrative remedies by 14 || appealing to the BIA before asking the federal district court to review the IJ’s decision.”). 15 Petitioner’s allegations do not establish that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the 16 || Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Accordingly, 17 Petition is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: June 22, 2026 Jehut C Low Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28