Jose Oscar Sajquim Guillermo v. Otay Mesa Detention Center Warden, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — DISCUSSION See 4 ||Rules Gover
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 that was not signed or verified by the petitioner. The court dismissed the petition with leave to amend, requiring the petitioner to file a signed and verified amended petition by July 26, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus dismissed with leave to amend“Based on the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the procedural requirement that habeas petitions must be signed and verified. The order recites that the petitioner failed to sign the petition and cites the relevant rules and case law supporting dismissal for this deficiency. Granting leave to amend is a standard and appropriate remedy for a pro se litigant's failure to comply with a procedural requirement that can be cured. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the deficiency (lack of signature/verification), cites the governing rules (28 U.S.C. § 2242, Habeas Rule 2(c)) and binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Hendricks v. Vasquez) to support the dismissal. It appropriately grants leave to amend, which is the standard practice for pro se litigants who can cure the defect. The order is concise and directly addresses the issue raised by the respondents.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
inconsistent with cited authorityOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSE OSCAR SAJQUIM GUILLERMO, Case No.: 3:26-cv-02397-RBM-MMP 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER [Doc. 1] WARDEN, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 On April 15, 2026, Petitioner Jose Oscar Sajquim Guillermo (“Petitioner”), 19 proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 20 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) Pursuant to this Court’s Order (see Doc. 2), Respondents filed a 21 Response to the Petition claiming that the Petition is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. 22 § 2242 because it is not signed and verified by Petitioner or by someone acting on 23 Petitioner’s behalf. (Doc. 5 at 1–2.) Petitioner was allowed to file an optional reply on or 24 before May 13, 2026. (Doc. 2 at 2.) However, Petitioner has not filed a reply brief or any 25 additional documents as of the date of this Order. 26 For the reasons set forth below, the Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH 27 LEAVE TO AMEND. 28 l I. DISCUSSION 2 Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 3 Courts requires that a petitioner sign and verify a petition for writ of habeas corpus. See 4 ||Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts R. 2 (2019) 5 || [hereinafter “Habeas Rules”] (requiring petition “be signed under penalty of perjury by the 6 || petitioner or by a person authorized to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242”); 7 ||28 U.S.C. § 2242 (“Application for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and 8 || verified by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.”’); 9 || see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(a) (requiring parties proceeding without counsel to sign all 10 || pleadings, motions, and other papers submitted to the court for filing). “The district court 11 ||may refuse to file, or may dismiss, an unsigned and unverified petition.” Hendricks v. 12 || Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990) 13 In this case, Petitioner did not sign or verify the instant Petition. (See generally Doc. 14 As Petitioner has failed to comply with Habeas Rule 2(c), the Petition must be 15 || dismissed. See Dixon v. Clark, 714 F. Supp. 2d 1029, 1034 (C.D. Cal. 2010). 16 Il. CONCLUSION 17 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED WITH 18 || LEAVE TO AMEND. Petitioner may file an amended petition that addresses the issued 19 identified above on or before July 26, 2026. The amended petition must be complete in 20 itself and may not reference or incorporate any other prior filings. If Plaintiff fails to file 21 ||an amended petition on or before July 26, 2026, the Court will enter a final order 22 || dismissing this action. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || DATE: June 29, 2026 Bornes, Mpataggy 6 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28