Cristobal Esteban Mateo v. Christopher J LaRose, Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center

Opinion

CRISTOBAL ESTEBAN MATEO, Case No.: 26-cv-3280-RSH-BJW

Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING PETITION v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CHRISTOPHER J LaROSE, Warden, Otay

Mesa Detention Center, Respondent.

On May 28, 2026, petitioner Cristobal Esteban Mateo filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 2241, provides that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). A detainee bears the burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts (the “Habeas Rules”) requires summary dismissal of a federal habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” See also Habeas Rule 1(b) (permitting district courts to apply Habeas Rules to Section 2241 habeas proceedings); Lane v. Feather, 584 F. App’x 843, 843 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district court’s application of Habeas Rule 4 to dismiss Section 2241 petition). Petitioner challenges his immigration proceedings as “prolonged.” ECF No. | at 2. He states that he was taken into immigration custody on February 13, 2026. Jd. at 6. He further states that on March 5, 2026, he received a bond hearing, but the immigration judge denied bond on the grounds of risk of flight. Jd. He complains of sleeplessness, dizziness, stomach pain, dirty utensils, unfiltered water, and a poor diet while in custody, and states he continues to wait for an appointment with a psychologist. /d. Petitioner has not alleged facts and/or a legal theory sufficient to establish that “[h]e /is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). It plainly appears from the face of the Petition that Petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief at this time. Accordingly, the Petition is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. . Dated: June 2, 2026 /Dhut ¢ [mer Hon. Robert S. Huie United States District Judge