Edwin Jose Hernandez Lagos v. DHS, ICE

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 31, 2026
• Docket: 5:26-cv-00742
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EASTERN DIVISION 11 EDWIN JOSE HERNANDEZ LAGOS, ) No. 5:26-cv-00742-JFW-JDE ) 12 ) Petitioner, ) ORDER SUMMARILY 13 ) ) DISMISSING ACTION 14 v. ) )

15 ) DHS, ICE, ) 16 ) ) 17 Respondents. )

18 I. 19 INTRODUCTION 20 On February 13, 2026, the Court received from Edwin Jose Hernandez 21 Lagos (“Petitioner”), a federal immigration detainee at the “ICE/DHS GEO 22 Facility” located in Adelanto, California, proceeding pro se and seeking leave 23 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) (Dkt. 2), a Petition for Writ of Habeas 24 Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Dkt. 1 (“Petition” or “Pet.”). Petitioner 25 purports to challenge “the lawfulness and constitutionality of [his] prolonged 26 detention by ICE which [he] contend[s] is excessive and violates [his] rights 27 under the Fifth Amendment.” Pet. at 2, 6. 28 1 Petitioner asserts he was taken into immigration custody on September 2 19, 2025, and as “been in ICE custody for over 90 days.” Pet. at 4, 6. He 3 claims his “removal or reinstatement order” is dated December 17, 2025. Pet. 4 at 4. He avers that “post-removal detention is not realistic and/or foreseeable 5 time.” Id. at 6. He further alleges that he is “not a danger to society nor a flight 6 risk” and asserts there are “no grounds for deportation, no criminal record,” 7 and his “prolonged detention without meaningful opportunity for release 8 violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment under Zadvydas v. 9 Davis.” Pet. at 7. He claims his “continued detention is not reasonably related 10 to any legitimate governmental purpose” and his “underlying ‘record’ is not 11 existent (case dismissed).” Id. He concludes that “prolonged post-removal 12 detention without release or a constitutionally adequate bond hearing is an 13 extreme[ly] harsh punishment [and] is unconstitutional under [the] 4th 5th and 14 8th Amendment[s].” He requests that “this Court: Grant this Petition . . . 15 and/or grant any other relief this Court deems just and proper.” Id. 16 A habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is subject to the same 17 screening requirements that apply to habeas petitions brought under 28 U.S.C. 18 § 2254. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District 19 Courts (“Habeas Rules”), Rule 1(b) (providing that district courts may apply 20 the Habeas Rules to habeas petitions that are not brought under 28 U.S.C. 21 § 2254); Lane v. Feather, 584 F. App’x 843 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district 22 court’s application of Habeas Rule 4 in dismissing a Section 2241 petition). 23 Thus, a district court “must promptly examine” the petition and, “[i]f it plainly 24 appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief,” the 25 “judge must dismiss the petition.” Habeas Rule 4; Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 26 644, 656 (2005). 27 The assigned magistrate judge reviewed the Petition under Habeas Rule 28 4 and, on February 17, 2026, issued an Order to Show Cause Why the Petition 1 Should Not Be Dismissed, identifying several apparent defects with the 2 Petition, and directing Petitioner to file a response within 21 days. Dkt. 4 3 (“OSC”). Petitioner did not file a timely response to the OSC or seek 4 additional time in which to do so. 5 For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that the Petition must be 6 dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules. 7 II. 8 DISCUSSION 9 As noted, under Rule 4 of the Habeas Rules, the Court “must promptly 10 examine” the Petition and, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition . . . that the 11 petitioner is not entitled to relief, . . . dismiss the petition.” See also Mayle, 545 12 at 656. 13 The Habeas Rules require a statement of all grounds for relief and the 14 facts supporting each ground, and the petition should state facts that point to a 15 real possibility of constitutional error and show the relationship of the facts to 16 the claim. See Habeas Rule 2(c); Habeas Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes, 17 1976 Adoption; Felix, 545 U.S. at 655; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 18 (9th Cir. 1990) (as amended). Allegations in a petition that are vague, 19 conclusory, palpably incredible, or unsupported by a statement of specific 20 facts, are insufficient to warrant relief, and are subject to summary dismissal. 21 See Jones v. Gomez, 66 F.3d 199, 204-05 (9th Cir. 1995); James v. Borg, 24 22 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994); Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 23 1990). 24 Here, the Petition falls far short of the minimal requirements to proceed 25 and fails to state facts that point to the real possibility of constitutional error. 26 Petitioner appears to seek relief under Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 689 27 (2001). In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court held that the “indefinite detention” of 28 aliens subject to final orders of removal raises “serious constitutional 1 concerns.” 533 U.S. at 682. The Court construed 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(6) to 2 contain an implicit “reasonable time” limitation. Id. The Court held that “the 3 statute, read in light of the Constitution’s demands, limits an alien’s post- 4 removal-period detention to a period reasonably necessary to bring about that 5 alien’s removal from the United States.” Id. at 689. “[F]or the sake of uniform 6 administration in the federal courts,” the Court held that six months was a 7 presumptively reasonable period of detention. Id. at 701. “After this 6-month 8 period, once the alien provides good reason to believe that there is no 9 significant likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future, the 10 Government must respond with evidence sufficient to rebut that showing.” Id. 11 Petitioner asserts he was taken into immigration custody on September 12 19, 2025. Pet. at 5. Petitioner does not provide any other facts regarding his 13 initial detention or any subsequent proceedings, except to assert that he was 14 ordered removed on December 17, 2025. As pled, for purposes of a Zadvydas 15 analysis, he had been in post-order-of-removal custody for less than two 16 months at the time he filed the Petition. As such, his detention at the time of 17 filing was presumptively reasonable under Zadvydas, indicating that the 18 Petition is not ripe for federal review. See, e.g., Akinwale v. Ashcroft, 287 F.3d 19 1050, 1052 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam) (finding the six-month presumptively 20 reasonable period “must have expired at the time [the alien’s] § 2241 petition 21 was filed in order to state a claim under Zadvydas”). Similarly, he has 22 provided no information regarding his home country, any efforts underway to 23 facilitate his removal to such country, any assertion that his home country will 24 not accept him or any facts supporting a claim that removal is unlikely in the 25 foreseeable future. Petitioner has not met his burden under Zadvydas, let alone 26 overcome the presumption of reasonableness of the six-month period. 27 Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701; Pelich v. INS, 329 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003) 28 (“Zadvydas places the burden on the alien to show, after a detention period of 1 ||stx months, that there is ‘good reason to believe that there is no significant 2 || likelihood of removal in the reasonably foreseeable future.’” (citation 3 |}omitted)). If there is some other basis upon which Petitioner claims his 4 || detention is wrongful, he has not alleged any facts to support such a claim and 5 ||thus he has not met his burden to justify habeas relief. See Habeas Rule 2(c), 4; 6 || Felix, 545 U.S. at 655; O’Bremski, 915 F.2d at 420; see also Jones, 66 F.3d at 7 204-05; James, 24 F.3d at 26; Hendricks, 908 F.2d at 491. 8 Accordingly, Petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas relief and this 9 || action must be dismissed without prejudice. 10 Ii. 11 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 12 For the foregoing reasons, IT HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) 13 || Petitioner’s IFP Request (Dkt. 2) is DENIED; and (2) Judgment shall be 14 entered dismissing the Petition without prejudice. 15 Lk 7 Dated: March 31, 2026 oe HN F. WALTER 18 nited States District Judge 19 Presented by; | Li Ke. 1 heed 22 || United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28