Kenner Antonio Carrales Guidel v. United States District Court Southern District of California
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Dana M. Sabraw (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an immigration detainee challenging his continued detention. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice, granting the petitioner leave to file an amended petition by July 30, 2026, because the original petition lacked crucial details regarding his entry into the United States and the basis for his current detention.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus dismissed without prejudice with leave to amend“After reviewing the Petition, the Petition is dismissed with leave to amend because it is missing crucial information for the Court to evaluate whether a response is warranted.” | agree with court The court's decision to dismiss without prejudice is consistent with the authority cited. The order identifies specific deficiencies (lack of entry details and detention basis) that prevent the court from evaluating the merits. Dismissing without prejudice allows the pro se petitioner to cure these defects, which is a standard procedural mechanism in habeas litigation when a petition is facially deficient but potentially meritorious. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for summary dismissal of a habeas petition by citing Kourteva v. I.N.S. The court identifies specific factual omissions (entry details, detention basis) that render the petition insufficient to evaluate. The remedy of dismissal without prejudice with a deadline to amend is procedurally appropriate for a pro se litigant. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for the procedural posture.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNER ANTONIO CARRALES Case No.: 26cv3728 DMS (BJW) GUIDEL, 12 ORDER DISMISSING CASE Petitioner, 13 WITHOUT PREJUDICE v. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF 16 CALIFORNIA, 17 Respondent. 18 19 Petitioner Kenner Antonio Carrales Guidel, an immigration detainee proceeding pro 20 se, has filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging 21 his continued detention at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility. 22 After reviewing the Petition, the Petition is dismissed with leave to amend because 23 it is missing crucial information for the Court to evaluate whether a response is warranted. 24 See Kourteva v. I.N.S., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary dismissal 25 is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably 26 incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”) For example, Petitioner fails to allege when and 27 how he entered the United States. He also fails to allege any details explaining his current 28 detention. l If Petitioner wishes to re-open and proceed with this habeas action, he must submit, 2 ||no later than July 30, 2026, a copy of this Order along with a completed First Amended 3 || Petition. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Petitioner a blank 28 U.S.C. § 2241 form 4 || petition for immigration cases, along with a copy of the instructions for completing the 5 || form. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ||Dated: June 30, 2026 9 Hon. Dana M. Sabraw United States District Judge 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28