Angel Deagueros-Mota v. Warden of Imperial Regional Detention Facility, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se habeas petition filed by a petitioner who had previously filed two similar petitions in other cases. The court dismissed the new petition as duplicative, ordered the case closed, and denied the motion for appointment of counsel as moot.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Dismissal of the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus“The Court therefore DISMISSES the Petition (Doc. 1).” | agree with court The dismissal is procedurally correct. The order recites that the petitioner was explicitly instructed in a prior order (the 2830 Action) that any amended petition 'SHALL NOT be filed as a new habeas petition' and must be filed in the existing 2830 Action. The petitioner ignored this instruction and filed a new case (the current 4892 Action) containing no new facts or grounds. Dismissing a duplicative action that violates a specific court order is a standard and appropriate exercise of judicial authority to manage the docket and prevent harassment. |
Denial of Motion for Appointment of Counsel“In light of the above, Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 2) is DENIED as moot.” | agree with court Because the underlying petition was dismissed, there is no pending matter for which counsel could be appointed. Denying the motion as moot is the correct procedural consequence of the dismissal. |
Ordering the Clerk to Close the Case“The Clerk of Court is thus directed to CLOSE this case.” | agree with court With the petition dismissed and no other pending motions, closing the case is the standard administrative step. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies that the petitioner filed a new action in violation of a specific prior court order directing that amendments be filed in the existing case. The court cites appropriate authority for dismissing duplicative actions. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the procedural defect (filing a new case instead of amending the existing one).
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGEL DEAGUEROS-MOTA, Case No.: 3:26-cv-04892-RBM-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AND CLOSING CASE 14 WARDEN OF IMPERIAL REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITIY, et al., 15 [Docs. 1, 2] Respondents. 16 17 18 19 20 Petitioner Angel Deagueros-Mota (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, filed a Petition 21 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”) (Doc. 1) and a 22 Motion for Appointment of Counsel (Doc. 2). Petitioner has previously filed habeas 23 petitions through counsel. See Deagueros Mota v. Bondi, Case No. 3:26-cv-01254-RBM- 24 MSB, ECF No. 1 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2026) (“the 1254 Action”); Deagueros Mota v. 25 Blanche, Case No. 3:26-cv-02830-RBM-MSB, ECF No. 1 (S.D. Cal. May 4, 2026) (“the 26 2830 Action”). 27 In the 1254 Action, this Court concluded that Petitioner was detained pursuant to 28 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a). (Doc. 9 at 3–5.) This Court found that Petitioner had not met his 1 burden under Zadydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001) to show that his removal was not 2 significantly likely in the reasonably foreseeable future, and dismissed the petition without 3 prejudice. (Id. at 7–8.) 4 About three months later, in the 2830 Action, this Court again denied Petitioner’s 5 Zadvydas claims without prejudice, finding that “even now that Petitioner has attended his 6 medical examination and has ostensibly filed his Forms I-485, I-601, and I-212, the mere 7 filing of those applications does not support a finding that his removal is not significantly 8 likely in the reasonably foreseeable future.” (Doc. 13 at 2–3.) The Court granted Petitioner 9 leave to file a second amended petition “should circumstances change after the Ninth 10 Circuit’s ruling on his pending Petition for Review or the processing of Petitioner’s Forms 11 I-485, I-601, and I-212.” (Id. at 3.) The Court further ordered that “the amended Petition 12 shall be filed in [the 2830 Action]; it SHALL NOT be filed as a new habeas petition.” (Id. 13 (emphasis in original).) 14 On August 27, 2026, Petitioner filed a new habeas petition, the operative Petition in 15 this case. (Doc. 1.) The Petition provides no new information or grounds for relief that 16 were not raised in the two prior petitions. The Court therefore DISMISSES the Petition 17 (Doc. 1). See Adams v. Cal. Dep’t of Health Servs., 487 F.3d 684, 688 (9th Cir. 2007), 18 overruled on other grounds by Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (2008) (“Plaintiffs 19 generally have no right to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter 20 at the same time in the same court and against the same defendant.”) (citation modified); 21 Salas v. Att’y Gen., No. 2:23-cv-01118-TL-TLF, 2023 WL 5826738, at *2 (W.D. Wash. 22 Aug. 21, 2023) (same as to duplicative habeas petitions). 23 As the Court explained in its previous Order in the 2830 Action, Petitioner’s 24 Zadvydas claim has not been dismissed with prejudice, and Petitioner may file an amended 25 petition if “circumstances change after the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on his pending Petition 26 for Review or the processing of [his USCIS applications].” (Doc. 13 at 3.) But any 27 amended petition must be filed in the 2830 Action. (Id.) The Clerk of Court is thus directed 28 to CLOSE this case. In light of the above, Petitioner’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel 1 ||(Doc. 2) is DENIED as moot. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 || DATE: August 31, 2026 Zt ria, Mpgyy 5 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28