1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DARWIN-ALEXANDER MORAN, Case No.: 25-CV-2657 JLS (VET)
11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR 12 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
13 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, (ECF No. 1) 14 Respondent. 15 16 17 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Darwin-Alexander Moran’s Petition for Writ 18 of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1). Also before the Court 19 are Respondent Pamela Bondi’s (Attorney General of the United States) Response in 20 Opposition to Petitioner’s Habeas Petition (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 4) and Petitioner’s Traverse 21 (“Traverse,” ECF No. 18). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES WITH 22 LEAVE TO AMEND Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner, an El Salvador national, alleges that they1 have been detained by the 3 Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Imperial 4 Regional Detention Facility in Calexico, California, since August 28, 2023, when they 5 arrived in the United States at or near El Paso, Texas, “requesting assistance in protecting 6 [their] life.” Pet. at 13, 22. On December 20, 2024, the Immigration Court denied asylum 7 and ordered that Petitioner cannot be removed to El Salvador pursuant to the United 8 Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Id. at 34. On September 29, 2025, 9 Petitioner was accepted by Mexico for third country removal, but on two occasions refused 10 removal to Mexico at the San Ysidro, California Port of Entry. Opp’n at 2. Petitioner 11 claims that they are still in detention, and their continued detention “violates the detention 12 statute and is unconstitutional.” Pet. at 20. Respondent claims that ERO continues to seek 13 a third country for Petitioner’s removal. Opp’n at 2. 14 LEGAL STANDARD 15 A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the 16 legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district of 17 his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The sole judicial 18 body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal is the 19 court of appeals. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Alvarez–Barajas v. Gonzales, 20 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 21 231, § 106(a)). However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral issues arising 22 independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of indefinite detention— 23 federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 24 443 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 25 26 27 28 1 As noted in the Immigration Court Opinion, Petitioner, though identifying as gay and non-binary, did 1 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1048–49 (N.D. Cal. 2 2018) (citations omitted). 3 DISCUSSION 4 When an alien is denied asylum, granted withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 5 1231(b)(3), and ordered removed, they must be detained for ninety days (90) pending the 6 government’s efforts to secure their removal to a third country. See 28 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). 7 This ninety-day period is referred to as the “removal period.” § 1231(a)(1)(A). After the 8 removal period, this statute “limits an alien’s post-removal-period detention to a period 9 reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States” and “does 10 not permit indefinite detention.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 (2001). A six- 11 month period of post-removal detention constitutes a “presumptively reasonable period of 12 detention.” Id. at 701. After this six-month period passes, the petitioner has the burden to 13 “provide[] good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the 14 reasonably foreseeable future.” Id. If petitioner satisfies their initial burden, it then shifts 15 to the Government to rebut that showing. Id. “[F]or detention to remain reasonable, as the 16 period of prior post-removal confinement grows, what counts as the ‘reasonably 17 foreseeable future’ conversely would have to shrink.” Id. “[O]nce removal is no longer 18 reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized by statute.” Id. at 699. 19 In that case, the alien’s release may be conditioned on any of the various forms of 20 conditioned release. Id. at 700. 21 “[T]he removal period begins when an alien is ‘ordered removed,’ and the removal 22 order becomes ‘administratively final.’” Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 534 23 (2021). 24 Section 1231(a)(1)(B) states that:
25 The removal period begins on the latest of the following: (i) The date the order of removal becomes administratively 26 final. 27 28 1 (ii) If the removal order is judicially reviewed and if a court orders a stay of the removal of the alien, the date of the court’s 2 final order. 3 (iii) If the alien is detained or confined (except under an immigration process), the date the alien is released from 4 detention or confinement. 5
6 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B). 7 As a threshold matter, as Respondent points out, Opp’n at 2, Petitioner has failed to 8 name the warden of the facility where they are detained as respondent, as required by 28 9 U.S.C. § 2243. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Petition. See 10 Mukhamadiev v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, No. 25-cv-1017-DMS-MSB, 2025 11 WL1208913, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2025) (“[T]he Court cannot exercise jurisdiction 12 over [petitioner’s] Petition so long as he fails to name as respondent the warden of the 13 detention facility where he is being detained.”). 14 Even if Petitioner had correctly named the warden of the facility where they are 15 detained, the Court is not persuaded that Petitioner has met their burden of demonstrating 16 that there is good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the 17 reasonably foreseeable future. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 689 (the petitioner has the burden 18 to “provide[] good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in 19 the reasonably foreseeable future”). Petitioner submits without explanation that they are 20 “unlikely to be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Pet. at 19. Respondent 21 submits that ICE is actively seeking Petitioner’s removal to a third country despite their 22 refusal to be removed to Mexico. Opp’n at 4. And in their Traverse, Petitioner did not 23 refute Respondent’s argument as to foreseeability.2 See generally Docket. Therefore, 24 Petitioner has not met their initial burden.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 DARWIN-ALEXANDER MORAN, Case No.: 25-CV-2657 JLS (VET)
11 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR 12 v. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
13 PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General, (ECF No. 1) 14 Respondent. 15 16 17 Presently before the Court is Petitioner Darwin-Alexander Moran’s Petition for Writ 18 of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Pet.,” ECF No. 1). Also before the Court 19 are Respondent Pamela Bondi’s (Attorney General of the United States) Response in 20 Opposition to Petitioner’s Habeas Petition (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 4) and Petitioner’s Traverse 21 (“Traverse,” ECF No. 18). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES WITH 22 LEAVE TO AMEND Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 BACKGROUND 2 Petitioner, an El Salvador national, alleges that they1 have been detained by the 3 Department of Homeland Security Immigration and Customs Enforcement at the Imperial 4 Regional Detention Facility in Calexico, California, since August 28, 2023, when they 5 arrived in the United States at or near El Paso, Texas, “requesting assistance in protecting 6 [their] life.” Pet. at 13, 22. On December 20, 2024, the Immigration Court denied asylum 7 and ordered that Petitioner cannot be removed to El Salvador pursuant to the United 8 Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). Id. at 34. On September 29, 2025, 9 Petitioner was accepted by Mexico for third country removal, but on two occasions refused 10 removal to Mexico at the San Ysidro, California Port of Entry. Opp’n at 2. Petitioner 11 claims that they are still in detention, and their continued detention “violates the detention 12 statute and is unconstitutional.” Pet. at 20. Respondent claims that ERO continues to seek 13 a third country for Petitioner’s removal. Opp’n at 2. 14 LEGAL STANDARD 15 A federal prisoner challenging the execution of his or her sentence, rather than the 16 legality of the sentence itself, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the district of 17 his confinement pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). The sole judicial 18 body able to review challenges to final orders of deportation, exclusion, or removal is the 19 court of appeals. See generally 8 U.S.C. § 1252; see also Alvarez–Barajas v. Gonzales, 20 418 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing REAL ID Act, Pub. L. No. 109-13, 119 Stat. 21 231, § 106(a)). However, for claims challenging ancillary or collateral issues arising 22 independently from the removal process—for example, a claim of indefinite detention— 23 federal habeas corpus jurisdiction remains in the district court. Nadarajah v. Gonzales, 24 443 F.3d 1069, 1076 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by Jennings v. Rodriguez, 25 26 27 28 1 As noted in the Immigration Court Opinion, Petitioner, though identifying as gay and non-binary, did 1 138 S. Ct. 830 (2018); Alvarez v. Sessions, 338 F. Supp. 3d 1042, 1048–49 (N.D. Cal. 2 2018) (citations omitted). 3 DISCUSSION 4 When an alien is denied asylum, granted withholding of removal under 8 U.S.C. § 5 1231(b)(3), and ordered removed, they must be detained for ninety days (90) pending the 6 government’s efforts to secure their removal to a third country. See 28 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(2). 7 This ninety-day period is referred to as the “removal period.” § 1231(a)(1)(A). After the 8 removal period, this statute “limits an alien’s post-removal-period detention to a period 9 reasonably necessary to bring about that alien’s removal from the United States” and “does 10 not permit indefinite detention.” Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 (2001). A six- 11 month period of post-removal detention constitutes a “presumptively reasonable period of 12 detention.” Id. at 701. After this six-month period passes, the petitioner has the burden to 13 “provide[] good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the 14 reasonably foreseeable future.” Id. If petitioner satisfies their initial burden, it then shifts 15 to the Government to rebut that showing. Id. “[F]or detention to remain reasonable, as the 16 period of prior post-removal confinement grows, what counts as the ‘reasonably 17 foreseeable future’ conversely would have to shrink.” Id. “[O]nce removal is no longer 18 reasonably foreseeable, continued detention is no longer authorized by statute.” Id. at 699. 19 In that case, the alien’s release may be conditioned on any of the various forms of 20 conditioned release. Id. at 700. 21 “[T]he removal period begins when an alien is ‘ordered removed,’ and the removal 22 order becomes ‘administratively final.’” Johnson v. Guzman Chavez, 594 U.S. 523, 534 23 (2021). 24 Section 1231(a)(1)(B) states that:
25 The removal period begins on the latest of the following: (i) The date the order of removal becomes administratively 26 final. 27 28 1 (ii) If the removal order is judicially reviewed and if a court orders a stay of the removal of the alien, the date of the court’s 2 final order. 3 (iii) If the alien is detained or confined (except under an immigration process), the date the alien is released from 4 detention or confinement. 5
6 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(1)(B). 7 As a threshold matter, as Respondent points out, Opp’n at 2, Petitioner has failed to 8 name the warden of the facility where they are detained as respondent, as required by 28 9 U.S.C. § 2243. Therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Petition. See 10 Mukhamadiev v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, No. 25-cv-1017-DMS-MSB, 2025 11 WL1208913, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2025) (“[T]he Court cannot exercise jurisdiction 12 over [petitioner’s] Petition so long as he fails to name as respondent the warden of the 13 detention facility where he is being detained.”). 14 Even if Petitioner had correctly named the warden of the facility where they are 15 detained, the Court is not persuaded that Petitioner has met their burden of demonstrating 16 that there is good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in the 17 reasonably foreseeable future. See Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 689 (the petitioner has the burden 18 to “provide[] good reason to believe that there is no significant likelihood of removal in 19 the reasonably foreseeable future”). Petitioner submits without explanation that they are 20 “unlikely to be removed in the reasonably foreseeable future.” Pet. at 19. Respondent 21 submits that ICE is actively seeking Petitioner’s removal to a third country despite their 22 refusal to be removed to Mexico. Opp’n at 4. And in their Traverse, Petitioner did not 23 refute Respondent’s argument as to foreseeability.2 See generally Docket. Therefore, 24 Petitioner has not met their initial burden. 25 26 27 28 2 However, Petitioner’s Traverse seems to suggest that Petitioner may have a credible fear of removal to 1 However, given Petitioner’s pro se status, the Court DENIES the Petition WITH 2 || LEAVE TO AMEND. To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, 3 || Petitioner SHALL not be removed from the United States until the Court resolves the case. 4 || See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 5 || 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining 6 whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending 7 ||resolution from the court.”) (citing cases). Pursuant to S.D. Cal., Chief Judge Order No. 8 || 134 (Nov. 18, 2025),° the Court recommends that Petitioner contact the Federal Defenders 9 || of San Diego, Inc. to assist in filing an amended petition. 10 CONCLUSION 11 Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 12 || Corpus (ECF No. 1) WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Within forty-five (45) days of entry 13 this Order, Petitioner may file an amended petition curing the deficiencies noted above. 14 Plaintiff fails to amend within the time provided, the Court will enter a final order 15 || dismissing this civil action. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005). 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 ||Dated: December 2, 2025 tt 18 ja Janis L. Sammartino 19 United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Accessible at https://www.casd.uscourts. gov/rules/general-orders.aspx#tab2.