Hatim Abdel Mongy Abdala Baker v. Christopher J. Larose, Warden of Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a second habeas corpus petition filed by an immigration detainee challenging his detention and conditions of confinement. The court denied the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and improper vehicle for conditions claims, and granted a motion to seal medical records.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Petition.” | agree with court The court correctly applies the exhaustion doctrine, which requires immigration detainees to appeal IJ decisions to the BIA before seeking federal habeas relief. It also correctly distinguishes between challenges to the fact/duration of detention (habeas) and conditions of confinement (Section 1983/Bivens), citing Muhammad v. Close. The denial is supported by the prior adjudication in the related case and the nature of the claims raised. |
Granting of Motion to Seal“Finally, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion to seal the declaration containing Petitioner’s private medical information.” | agree with court Courts have broad discretion to seal documents containing sensitive personal information, such as private medical records, to protect privacy interests. The grant is consistent with standard practice for protecting confidential medical data in public dockets. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural bar (exhaustion) and the substantive misclassification of the conditions claim. It relies on binding Ninth Circuit precedent for exhaustion and Supreme Court precedent for the habeas/1983 distinction. The reasoning is concise but legally sufficient for the dismissal.
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 HATIM ABDEL MONGY ABDALA Case No.: 3:26-cv-2935-CAB-SBC BAKER, 12 ORDER: Petitioner, 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL, 14 [Doc. No. 10]; and CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden of 15 Otay Mesa Detention Center, (2) DENYING PETITION FOR A 16 Respondent. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 17 18 19 Petitioner Hatim Abdel Mongy Abdala Baker has filed a second petition for a writ 20 of habeas corpus pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] As a result of a 21 prior habeas petition, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226. [See 22 Abdala Baker v. Gordon, No. 3:25-CV-3539-CAB-SBC at Doc. Nos. 4, 5, 8.] At that 23 hearing, the immigration judge (“IJ”) denied bond finding Petitioner was both a danger to 24 the community and a flight risk. [Id. at Doc. No. 8.] Petitioner then filed an opposition to 25 the bond hearing and after additional briefing and review, the Court agreed with 26 Respondents that Petitioner should have exhausted administrative remedies by appealing 27 to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) before asking the federal district court to 28 review the IJ’s decision. [Id. (quoting Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th 1 ||Cir. 2011).] Upon review of the briefing for this Petition, the Court maintains that 2 || Petitioner must exhaust his administrative remedies via review by the BIA before pursuing 3 || habeas action in federal district court.! 4 Petitioner also alleges that he suffers from severe medical conditions, “including 5 || prostate cancer requiring surgical intervention, a history of open-heart surgeries, Type II 6 || diabetes, and hypertension—all of which have been inadequately treated in detention.” 7 ||[Doc. No. 6 at 2-3.] Such a challenge to conditions of confinement may be brought in a 8 || civil action, usually under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens, not a habeas claim. Wilson v. Ponce, 9 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 1046 (C.D. Cal. 2020); see also Muhammad vy. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 10 || 750 (2004) (“Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its 11 ||duration are the province of habeas corpus . . . [while] requests for relief turning on 12 || circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.’”’). 13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Petition. The Court also orders 14 || Petitioner’s counsel to provide a copy of this Order to Petitioner and to notify the Court 15 || when this has been done. 16 Finally, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion to seal the declaration containing 17 || Petitioner’s private medical information. [Doc. No. 10 (requesting to file Doc. No. 11 18 || under seal). | 19 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 20 It is SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: August 5, 2026 23 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 34 United States District Judge 25 26 ! The Court reminds Petitioner’s counsel that an attorney may be subject to sanctions or other discipline 27 || for filing a habeas petition or motion to enforce judgment for a petitioner with a previously adjudicated 3g ||petition and no new facts or circumstances. See also Singh v. Warden of Imperial Regional Detention Facility, et al., No. 3:26-cv-154-BAS-MSB; Bah v. Diwver, et al., No. 3:26-cv-1453-BAS-DDL.