Pedro Simon-Juan v. Patrick Divver, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Robert Steven Huie (author)
Analysis
Petitioner Pedro Simon-Juan, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed a third habeas corpus petition challenging the revocation of his parole and his mandatory detention, along with a motion for appointment of counsel. The court denied the petition as repetitive and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and denied the motion for counsel.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Accordingly, the Petition is DENIED [ECF No. 1].” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the parole revocation claims were duplicative of a prior denied petition. For the new mandatory detention claim, the court correctly applied the exhaustion doctrine, noting that the petitioner had not appealed the Immigration Judge's bond determination to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) before seeking federal habeas review. The reliance on Leonardo v. Crawford supports this procedural requirement. |
Denial of Motion for Appointment of Counsel“The Court likewise DENIES Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 2].” | agree with court The court applied the standard that appointment of counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is discretionary and reserved for exceptional circumstances. Given that the petition was denied on procedural grounds (repetition and failure to exhaust), there was no indication of exceptional circumstances warranting appointment. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise and directly addresses the two main issues: the duplicative nature of the parole claims and the failure to exhaust administrative remedies for the detention claim. It cites appropriate Ninth Circuit authority for the exhaustion requirement and the standard for appointing counsel. The reasoning is sufficient to support the denial.
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 PEDRO SIMON-JUAN, Case No.: 26-cv-4659-RSH-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 PATRICK DIVVER, et al., [ECF Nos. 1, 2] 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 19 On August 14, 2026, petitioner Pedro Simon-Juan, an immigration detainee 20 proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus (the “Petition”) pursuant to 28 21 U.S.C. § 2241. See ECF No. 1. Petitioner has also moved for appointment of counsel. ECF 22 No. 2. Respondents have filed a return. ECF No. 7. 23 This is Petitioner’s third habeas petition filed in recent months. See Case No. 26-cv- 24 1015 (petition filed Feb. 11, 2026; denied on March 12, 2026); Case No. 26-cv-2237 25 (petition filed April 8, 2026; denied on June 11, 2026). A habeas petition is subject to 26 dismissal when it is repetitive or duplicative. See, e.g., Salas v. Att’y Gen., No. 2:23-cv- 27 1118-TL-TLF, 2023 WL 5826738, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 21, 2023). The Petition alleges 28 that the revocation of Petitioner’s parole violated due process because he was not provided 1 || with “notice and an opportunity to be heard.” ECF No. 1| at 7-8. The claims regarding the 2 ||revocation of Petitioner’s parole are repetitive to the claims brought in his second petition. 3 || Compare id., with Case No. 26-cv-2237, ECF No. 9 at 7-10 (“[T]he government’s 4 ||revocation of Mr. Simon Juan’s release without reasoning or an opportunity to be heard, 5 || denied Petitioner of his due process rights.’’). 6 Petitioner brings a new claim in his third petition challenging his purported 7 ||“mandatory detention” under 8 U.S.C. § 1225. ECF Nos. | at 6; 1-4. But at Petitioner’s 8 || bond hearing in August 2025, an immigration judge determined Petitioner was a flight risk 9 ||due to “his prior convictions and disregard for immigration law.” ECF No. 7-2 at 1. 10 || Petitioner is required to exhaust his administrative remedies through an appeal to the BIA 11 || before seeking habeas review of the immigration judge’s adverse bond determination. See 12 ||Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Here, [the petitioner] 13 || pursued habeas review of the IJ’s adverse bond determination before appealing to the BIA. 14 || This short cut was improper. [The petitioner] should have exhausted administrative 15 ||}remedies by appealing to the BIA before asking the federal district court to review the IJ’s 16 || decision.”). Petitioner has not exhausted his administrative remedies here. 17 Accordingly, the Petition is DENIED [ECF No. 1]. The Court likewise DENIES 18 || Petitioner’s motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. 2]. See Agyeman v. Corr. Corp. 19 |lof Am., 390 F.3d 1101, 1103 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that the decision to appoint counsel 20 || under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) is within “the sound discretion of the trial court and is granted 21 || only in exceptional circumstances”). The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 17, 2026 Johut C [nae 5 Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge 26 27 28