Jairon Enrique Borjas-Castillo v. Todd Blanche, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a second, identical habeas petition filed by a pro se petitioner challenging his immigration detention under *Zadvydas v. Davis*, along with motions for a TRO and appointment of counsel. The court dismissed the petition without prejudice as duplicative and denied the motions as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Therefore, the Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Petition. (ECF No. 1.)” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the petition was duplicative of a prior petition filed by the same petitioner in a different case number, which had already been denied on the merits. Dismissing a repetitive habeas petition without prejudice is a standard procedural mechanism to prevent abuse of process while preserving the petitioner's right to file a new petition if new grounds arise. The court's finding that the additional time in custody did not change the legal analysis under *Zadvydas* is consistent with the prior ruling. |
Denial of Motion for Temporary Restraining Order“Further, in light of the Court’s dismissal, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the Motion Appoint Counsel and the Motion for a TRO. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.)” | agree with court Because the underlying petition was dismissed, the request for a TRO to stay removal or detention pending the outcome of that petition became moot. Denying the motion as moot is procedurally appropriate. |
Denial of Motion to Appoint Counsel“Further, in light of the Court’s dismissal, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the Motion Appoint Counsel and the Motion for a TRO. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.)” | agree with court The motion for appointment of counsel was tied to the prosecution of the habeas petition. With the petition dismissed, the need for appointed counsel in this specific action ceased. Denying it as moot is consistent with the dismissal of the underlying claim. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the petition as duplicative of a recently denied case involving the same petitioner and same legal theory. The court relies on the prior ruling to justify dismissal without prejudice, which is a standard approach to handling successive, identical habeas petitions. The denial of the TRO and counsel motions as moot follows logically from the dismissal of the underlying petition. The order is concise and addresses the specific filings before the court.
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 JAIRON ENRIQUE BORJAS- Case No. 26-cv-03690-BAS-VET CASTILLO, 12 ORDER: Petitioner, 13 v. (1) DENYING PETITION FOR 14 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TODD BLANCHE, et al., 15 (ECF No. 1); Respondents. 16 (2) DENYING MOTION FOR 17 TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER (ECF No. 2); AND 18 19 (3) DENYING MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL 20 (ECF No. 3) 21 22 23 Petitioner Jairon Enrique Borjas-Castillo filed an earlier habeas petition pursuant to 24 28 U.S.C. § 2241 arguing that he had been subject to prolonged detention under Zadvydas 25 v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 687 (2001). (Case No. 26-cv-2909-BAS-VET, ECF No. 1.) He was 26 represented by counsel in that case. (Id.) On June 4, 2026, this Court denied the Petition, 27 finding Petitioner had not been subject to an arbitrarily and unreasonably prolonged 28 detention under Zadvydas and that he had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies 1 || after the Immigration Judge found at a bond hearing that his release would pose a danger 2 the community. Ud. at ECF No. 5.) 3 Undaunted, less than three weeks later, on June 23, 2026, Petitioner filed an identical 4 || petition arguing again that he had been subject to prolonged detention under Zadvydas v. 5 || Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). This time he is acting pro per and moves for appointment of 6 ||counsel (ECF No. 3) and for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) (ECF No. 2). The 7 || Government opposes. (ECF No. 8.) 8 A habeas petition is subject to summary dismissal when it is repetitive or duplicative. 9 || See, e.g., Salas v. Att’y Gen., No. 2:23-cv-01118-TL-TLF, 2023 WL 5826738, at *2 (W.D. 10 || Wash. Aug. 21, 2023). The Petition here provides no new information or grounds for relief 11 ||that were not raised in the prior Petition. Nor does the additional time in immigration 12 ||custody make Petitioner’s detention arbitrarily or unreasonably prolonged. Therefore, the 13 || Court DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE the Petition. (ECF No. 1.) 14 Further, in light of the Court’s dismissal, the Court DENIES AS MOOT the Motion 15 Appoint Counsel and the Motion for a TRO. (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) The Clerk of Court shall 16 || enter a judgment dismissing this action without prejudice and shall close the case file. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 19 || DATED: July 7, 2026 ii ly A (Dipharb 20 Hén. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 51 United States District Court 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4.