Andreiver Alfredo Munoz v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANDREIVER ALFREDO MUNOZ, Case No.: 3:26-cv-01601-RBM-VET

12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION 13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS WITHOUT PREJUDICE 14 WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION

CENTER, 15 [Doc. 1] Respondent. 16 17 18 On March 13, 2026, Petitioner Andreiver Alfredo Munoz (“Petitioner”) filed a 19 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) 20 For the reasons set forth below, the Petition is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 21 I. DISCUSSION 22 The Court must first screen habeas corpus petitions to determine whether they are 23 subject to summary dismissal. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United 24 States District Courts R. 4 (2019) [hereinafter “Habeas Rules”]; see Lainez Flores v. 25 Warden, Case No.: 26-cv-168-JES-VET, 2026 WL 213516, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2026) 26 (“A habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is subject to the same screening 27 requirements that apply to those brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.”). Summary dismissal 28 is appropriate where “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached 1 exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,” Habeas Rule 4, or 2 “where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory.” Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. 3 Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citation omitted). 4 To survive screening , the petitioner need only make out a claim that is sufficiently 5 “cognizable” to warrant a return or answer from the government. See Neiss v. Bludworth, 6 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). A petition from a litigant representing 7 himself is held to “less stringent standards” than a petition drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. 8 Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). But 9 pro se litigants still “must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants,” 10 such as satisfying the habeas screening requirements. King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 11 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 12 925 (9th Cir. 2012). The dismissal does not bar the petitioner from seeking habeas relief 13 in the future. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 8 (1963) (“The inapplicability of res 14 judicata to habeas . . . is inherent in the very role and function of the writ.”). 15 In this case, Petitioner was detained on December 30, 2025, and seeks his 16 “immediate release from [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s] custody while 17 his immigration proceedings continue.” (Doc. 1 at 1.) However, Petitioner does not 18 present a claim that would entitle him habeas relief such as violation of a statute, the Fifth 19 Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Immigration and Nationality Act, or the 20 Administrative Procedure Act. 21 Petitioner also fails to allege any facts that support grounds for relief. Petitioner 22 claims that he “remains in custody despite having no federal charges filed against him.” 23 (Doc. 1 at 1.) He also claims he “is currently in the process of resolving his immigration 24 matters,” has “[s]trong family ties in the United States,” and is not a “danger to the 25 community [or at] risk of flight.” (Doc. 1-2 at 1.) From these minimal facts, the Court 26 cannot determine whether Respondents plausibly engaged in unlawful conduct. Petitioner 27 provides no facts regarding his immigration status. For example, Petitioner does not state 28 how long he has resided in the country, when and where he entered the United States, the 1 nature of his “immigration matters,” whether he has received a bond hearing, whether he 2 || was previously detained by Respondents and released on parole, or whether he is subject 3 ||to mandatory detention by Respondents. Without this information, the Court cannot 4 || determine whether Petitioner is entitled to habeas relief. As the Petition fails to meet the 5 screening requirements for a habeas petition, summary dismissal is required.' 6 I. CONCLUSION 7 For the reasons above, the Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice. 8 || Petitioner MAY FILE an amended petition addressing the issues identified above on or 9 before April 20, 2026. The amended petition must be complete in itself and may not 10 ||reference or incorporate any other prior filings. 11 Failure to file an amended petition on or before April 20, 2026, may result in 12 || dismissal of this action. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 || DATE: March 17, 2026 FRA Barri, Magy □□ 16 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 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.