Jorge Eduardo Cristobal Amezcua v. Christopher Larose
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court considered a third habeas corpus petition filed by an immigration detainee who had previously filed two petitions in a related case. The court dismissed the third petition as duplicative and ordered the case closed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the Third Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus“Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the Third Petition and advises Petitioner that future petitions that do not demonstrate materially changed circumstances, such as the resolution of his appeal to the BIA, will be similarly dismissed.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the petition was duplicative of prior filings and that the petitioner had not presented new grounds for relief. Dismissing repetitive habeas petitions is a standard procedural mechanism to prevent abuse of the writ, and the court's finding that no new information was provided supports the dismissal. |
The order itself: sound with gaps — The order is procedurally sound. It cites a district court case from another district (W.D. Wash.) to support the proposition that duplicative petitions can be dismissed. While it would be more robust to cite a Ninth Circuit authority or a specific Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (such as Rule 12(b)(6) or the inherent power to dismiss frivolous/duplicative filings), the legal principle applied is well-established and the factual basis (no new grounds) is clearly stated. The order is brief but sufficient for a procedural dismissal of a pro se filing.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 JORGE EDUARDO CRISTOBAL Case No.: 3:26-cv-3613-CAB-JAC AMEZCUA, 14 ORDER DISMISSING THIRD Petitioner, 15 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF v. HABEAS CORPUS 16
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, 17
Respondent. 18 19 20 Petitioner Jorge Eduardo Cristobal Amezcua, an immigration detainee proceeding 21 pro se, has filed a third petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 22 [Doc. No. 1 (“Third Petition”).] On March 2, 2026, Petitioner filed his first habeas petition 23 in a separate case. [Case No. 3:26-cv-1340-CAB-DDL (“Amezcua I”), Doc. No. 1 24 (“Petition”).] Before the Court ruled on the Petition, an immigration judge (“IJ”) granted 25 Petitioner voluntary return to Mexico by June 1, 2026 with release from detention within 26 five business days of the order and payment of a bond. [Id.] Instead of voluntarily 27 returning to Mexico, however, Petitioner appealed the IJ’s order to the Board of 28 Immigration Appeals (“BIA”). [Amezcua I, Doc. No. 14.] l On May 20, 2026, Petitioner filed a second petition for a writ of habeas corpus 2 || pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [Amezcua I, Doc. No. 15 (“Second Petition”).] The Court 3 denied his Second Petition because of his pending appeal with the BIA. [Amezcua I, Doc. 4 16.] 5 On June 18, 2026, Petitioner filed his Third Petition. A habeas petition is subject to 6 ||summary dismissal when it is repetitive or duplicative. See, e.g., Salas v. Att’y Gen., No. 7 2:23-cv-01118-TL-TLF, 2023 WL 5826738, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 21, 2023). Here, the 8 || Third Petition provides no new information or grounds for relief that were not raised in the 9 || two prior petitions before this Court. Therefore, the Court DISMISSES the Third Petition 10 ||and advises Petitioner that future petitions that do not demonstrate materially changed 11 circumstances, such as the resolution of his appeal to the BIA, will be similarly dismissed. 12 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 13 It is SO ORDERED. 14 Dated: June 26, 2026 € 15 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28