Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JOSE OSCAR SAJQUIM GUILLERMO, Case No.: 3:26-cv-02397-RBM-MMP 11 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING AMENDED 12 v. PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 13 OTAY MESA DETENTION CENTER WARDEN, et al., 14 [Doc. 7] Respondents. 15 16 17 Petitioner Jose Oscar Sajquim Guillermo (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, 18 commenced this action on April 15, 2026, by filing a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 19 (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) Pursuant to this Court’s Order (see 20 Doc. 2), Respondents filed a Response arguing that the Petition was subject to dismissal 21 under 28 U.S.C. § 2242 because it was not signed or verified by Petitioner or someone 22 acting on Petitioner’s behalf. (Doc. 5 at 1–2.) Petitioner was allowed to file an optional 23 Reply on or before May 13, 2026, but did not do so. (See Doc. 2 at 2.) 24 On June 29, 2026, the Court dismissed the Petition for failure to sign or verify the 25 Petition but granted Petitioner leave to file an amended petition. (Doc. 6 at 2.) Petitioner 26 timely filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Amended 27 Petition”) on July 13, 2026. (Doc. 7.) For the reasons set forth below, the Amended 28 Petition (Doc. 7) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 1 I. DISCUSSION 2 The Court must first screen habeas corpus petitions to determine whether they are 3 subject to summary dismissal. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 4 States District Courts R. 4 (2019); see Lainez Flores v. Warden, Case No.: 26-cv-168-JES- 5 VET, 2026 WL 213516, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2026) (“A habeas petition brought under 6 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is subject to the same screening requirements that apply to those brought 7 under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”). “Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations 8 in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.” 9 Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Hendricks v. 10 Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990)). To survive screening , the petitioner need 11 only make out a claim that is sufficiently “cognizable” to warrant a return or answer from 12 the government. See Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned 13 up). A petition from a litigant representing himself is held to “less stringent standards” 14 than a petition drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting 15 Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). But pro se litigants still “must follow the 16 same rules of procedure that govern other litigants,” such as satisfying the habeas screening 17 requirements. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other 18 grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012). 19 Here, Petitioner claims his immigration detention has been unconstitutionally 20 prolonged in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Doc. 7 at 7.) 21 Petitioner alleges that he entered the United States on November 5, 2005, and was taken 22 into immigration custody on January 13, 2026. (Id. at 5, 7.) He also alleges that in 2021, 23 he and his attorney “decided that the best option was to apply for asylum.” (Id. at 7.) 24 However, the Court is missing important information from Petitioner that it needs to 25 properly evaluate his prolonged detention claim. For example, Petitioner does not indicate 26 whether and when he applied for asylum, whether was detained when he first entered the 27 United States, his country of origin, whether he was previously released on parole, whether 28 he has been provided with a bond hearing while in immigration detention, whether an 1 ||immigration judge has ordered him removed, or what stage his immigration proceedings 2 currently at. Without this information, the Court cannot determine whether 3 ||Respondents plausibly engaged in unlawful conduct. See Kourteva, 151 F. Supp. 2d at 4 (‘Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are 5 || vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.’’) (citation omitted). 6 || The Amended Petition therefore fails to meet the screening requirements for a habeas 7 || petition and must be dismissed.! 8 Il. CONCLUSION 9 Based on the foregoing reasons, the Amended Petition (Doc. 7) is DISMISSED 10 || WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Petitioner MAY FILE an amended petition addressing the 11 ||issues identified above on or before August 24, 2026. The amended petition must be 12 |}complete in itself and may not reference or incorporate any other prior filings. If Plaintiff 13 || fails to file an amended petition on or before August 24, 2026, the Court will enter a final 14 order dismissing this action. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005). 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ||DATE: July 23, 2026 i RA Barmedy Hang D 18 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ' Petitioner may be interested in contacting Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. to see if a Federal Defender can represent Petitioner in this matter.