Manuel Alexander Fuentes Guevara v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 9.) The
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered a third habeas corpus petition filed by a self-represented immigration detainee who is subject to a final order of removal and is currently appealing a denial of a motion to reopen. The court denied the petition as duplicative of two prior petitions filed in 2026 and denied the motion for immediate release as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Therefore, the Court DENIES the Petition. (ECF No. 1.)” | agree with court The court's decision to deny the petition as duplicative is legally sound given the recital that the petitioner is raising the same claims as in two prior petitions filed within the same year and that the petition provides no new information or grounds for relief. The underlying merits (mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2)) were already adjudicated in the Second Petition, and the petitioner's status (appealing a motion to reopen) does not constitute new grounds for habeas relief at this stage. |
Denial of Motion for Immediate Release as Moot“The Court also DENIES AS MOOT the Motion for Immediate release. (ECF No. 2.)” | agree with court The motion for immediate release is derivative of the habeas petition. Since the habeas petition was denied, the request for immediate release based on that petition is moot. This is a standard procedural consequence of denying the underlying petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the petition as duplicative of prior filings in the same year and cites authority for summary dismissal of repetitive habeas petitions. The court relies on its prior rulings in the First and Second Petitions to establish that the petitioner is subject to mandatory detention and that removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. The order is concise but sufficient for a duplicative petition.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
record incomplete record incompleteOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MANUEL ALEXANDER FUENTES Case No. 26-cv-04149-BAS-DEB GUEVARA, 12 ORDER: Petitioner, 13 v. (1) DENYING PETITION FOR 14 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION 15 (ECF No. 1); AND CENTER, 16 Respondent. (2) DENYING AS MOOT MOTION 17 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE (ECF No. 2) 18 20 Petitioner Manuel Alexander Fuentes Guevara is self-represented. On July 20, 2026, 21 he filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) 22 This is Petitioner’s third Petition in 2026. (See Fuentes Guevara v. LaRose, 26-cv-00342- 23 BAS-DDL (S.D. Cal. filed Jan. 20, 2026) (“First Petition”); Fuentes Guevara v. LaRose, 24 26-cv-03540-BAS-DDL (S.D. Cal. filed June 14, 2026) (“Second Petition).) 25 In the First Petition, Petitioner was represented by counsel. The Court denied the 26 Petition on February 13, 2026, because Petitioner is subject to a final order of removal, and 27 his removal order is not being executed because Petitioner is trying to reopen his 28 1 ||immigration case. (First Petition, ECF No. 7.) That ruling is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. 2 || Ud. at ECF Nos. 9-11.) 3 In the Second Petition, Petitioner was likewise represented by counsel. The Court 4 denied the Petition on July 1, 2026. (Second Petition, ECF No. 9.) The Court explained: 5 For all the reasons stated in this Court’s previous order, Petitioner is 6 subject to mandatory detention under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). In addition, although Petitioner has now been in custody for more than six months, at this 7 point, the Court does not find that “there is no significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.” 9 The Government previously presented evidence that an individual can be removed to El Salvador in two to three days. The only reason Petitioner 10 . has not been removed is because he moved to reopen his removal proceedings 11 and then, because that motion to reopen was denied, he appealed the denial. At this point, the Court finds his removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future. Of course, if Petitioner obtains a reversal and is able to 13 reopen his removal proceedings, then he will be in a different posture, but 14 until then, the Court finds denial of the Petition is appropriate. 15 || Ud. (citations omitted).) 16 Petitioner now brings this Third Petition a short time later, again raising the same 17 || claims as his First and Second Petitions. A habeas petition is subject to summary dismissal 18 || when it is repetitive or duplicative. See, e.g., Salas v. Att’y Gen., No. 2:23-cv-01118-TL- 19 || TLF, 2023 WL 5826738, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 21, 2023). The Petition here provides 20 new information or grounds for relief that were not raised in the First or Second 21 || Petitions. Therefore, the Court DENIES the Petition. (ECF No. 1.) The Court also 22 || DENIES AS MOOT the Motion for Immediate release. (ECF No. 2.) 23 The Clerk of Court shall enter a judgment dismissing this action without prejudice 24 || and shall close the case file. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 || DATED: July 27, 2026 Yi { ly 2 (Dipharb 28 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court ~_9_