Carlos Mazama Tazama v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 13, 2026
• Docket: 5:26-cv-00462
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EASTERN DIVISION 11 CARLOS MAZAMA TAZAMA, ) No. 5:26-cv-00462-SPG-JDE ) 12 ) Petitioner, ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 ) ) THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE 14 v. ) DISMISSED )

15 ) U.S. IMMIGRATION AND ) 16 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, ) ) 17 ) Respondent. ) 18 19 On February 2, 2026, the Court received from Carlos Mazama Tazama 20 (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se and seeking to proceed in forma pauperis 21 (“IFP”), a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, 22 alleging that he has been unlawfully detained by Immigration and Customs 23 Enforcement (“ICE”) and seeking his immediate release from custody. Dkt. 1 24 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). 25 A habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is subject to the same 26 screening requirements that apply to habeas petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. 27 § 2254. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 28 1 Courts (“Habeas Rules”), Rule 1(b) (providing that district courts may apply 2 the Habeas Rules to habeas petitions that are not brought under 28 U.S.C. 3 § 2254); Lane v. Feather, 584 F. App’x 843 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district 4 court’s application of Habeas Rule 4 in dismissing a Section 2241 petition). 5 Thus, a district court “must promptly examine” the petition and, “[i]f it plainly 6 appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not 7 entitled to relief,” the “judge must dismiss the petition.” See also Mayle v. 8 Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005). The Court has reviewed the Petition under 9 Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules and notes the following apparent defects therein. 10 First, Petitioner has failed to provide sufficient facts in support of his 11 grounds for relief. Habeas Rules 2(c) and 4 require a statement of all grounds 12 for relief and the facts supporting each ground; the petition should state facts 13 that point to a real possibility of constitutional error and show the relationship 14 of the facts to the claim. See Habeas Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes to 15 1976 Adoption; Felix, 545 U.S. at 655; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 16 (9th Cir. 1990) (as amended). Allegations in a petition that are vague, 17 conclusory, palpably incredible, or unsupported by a statement of specific 18 facts, are insufficient to warrant relief, and are subject to summary dismissal. 19 See, e.g., Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204-05 (9th Cir. 1995); James v. Borg, 20 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th 21 Cir. 1990). 22 Here, Petitioner alleges that he has been detained by ICE beyond the 23 removal period authorized by statute in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6). See 24 Pet. at 6 (CM/ECF pagination)). Section 1231 governs the detention and 25 removal of noncitizens who have been ordered removed. Petitioner, however, 26 appears to allege he is not subject to a final order of removal, indicating that an 27 immigration judge has not ordered him removed from the United States. Id. at 28 11. Further, although he claims he has been detained for nine months (id. at 1 12), he does not provide any information regarding his detention, including 2 whether he has been provided a bond hearing. Based on the allegations, it 3 appears Petitioner was taken into custody when he entered the United States 4 on April 8, 2025. Id. at 4, 11. Similarly, to the extent Petitioner is subject to a 5 final order of removal, he has provided no information in support of his 6 contention that ICE is unlikely to remove him in the reasonably foreseeable 7 future. See id. at 12, 18. Based on the foregoing, as pled, the Petition is subject 8 to dismissal. 9 Second, typically, the proper respondent for a Section 2241 petition is 10 the custodian of the institution where the petitioner is incarcerated. See 28 11 U.S.C. § 2242; see also Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004). The 12 failure to name the correct respondent may destroy personal jurisdiction. See 13 Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996) (as amended); 14 Stanley v. Cal. Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994) (as amended). 15 The Court make no finding as to whether a proper Respondent has been 16 named here. 17 * * * * 18 Petitioner is therefore ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action 19 should not be dismissed by filing a written response by no later than twenty- 20 eight (28) days from the date of this Order which sets forth any valid legal 21 and/or factual reasons why the Petition should not be dismissed for the 22 foregoing deficiencies. 23 Instead of filing a written response to the matters addressed in this 24 Order, Petitioner may comply with this Order by filing, within twenty-eight 25 (28) days of this Order, a First Amended Petition that complies with 28 U.S.C. 26 § 2241 and the Habeas Rules by, among other things, naming the proper 27 respondent and setting forth in detail every ground on which Petitioner claims 28 he is being held unlawfully with supporting facts. The Clerk is directed to 1 |}include a blank copy of the Court approved Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 2 ||by_a Person in Federal Custody (28 U.S.C. § 2241) (Form CV-27) form. 3 Failure to timely file a compliant response to this Order may result in 4 || dismissal of this action for the reasons explained above and for failure to 5 || prosecute and comply with Court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 || Dated: February 13, 2026___

10 N D. EARLY 1] nited States Magistrate Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28