Haowen Chen v. Warden of the Desert View Detention Facility

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: April 15, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-03130
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAOWEN C.,1 CASE NO. CV 25-3130 JLS (PVC)

12 Petitioner, ORDER DISMISSING FIRST 13 v. AMENDED PETITION WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 14 WARDEN OF THE DESERT VIEW DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 On April 9, 2025, Haowen C. (Petitioner), a federal prisoner proceeding with 19 counsel, filed a habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Dkt. No. 1). On April 10, 20 Petitioner filed a First Amended Petition. (“FAP,” Dkt. No. 4). Petitioner, who is 21 currently incarcerated at the Desert View Detention Facility, contends that his “prolonged 22 detention” by Respondents without a hearing violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth 23 Amendment. (Id. at 2). He names multiple Respondents, including the Warden of the 24 Desert View Annex Detention Facility. (Id. at 1, 5–6). However, the First Amended 25 26

27 1 The Court partially redacts Plaintiff’s name in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2(c)(2)(B) and the recommendation of the Committee on Court 28 Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the United States. 1 Petition must be dismissed with leave to amend because Petitioner did not verify the FAP 2 or name the proper respondent.2 3 4 A. The First Amended Petition Is Not Verified 5 6 An “[a]pplication for a writ of habeas corpus shall be in writing signed and verified 7 by the person for whose relief it is intended or by someone acting in his behalf.” 28 8 U.S.C. § 2242; see also 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254, Rule 2(c)(5) (The petition must … be 9 signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a person authorized to sign it for 10 the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242.”). Further, “[i]f the petition … is verified by a 11 person other than the individual in custody, the person verifying the document shall set 12 forth the reason why it has not been verified by the person in custody. The person 13 verifying the document shall allege only facts personally known to that person. If facts 14 are alleged upon information and belief, the source of the information and belief shall be 15 stated.” C.D. Cal. Local Rule 83-16.2. 16 17 Here, while Petitioner’s counsel prepared and signed the FAP, he did not verify it 18 under penalty of perjury. Nor is it clear which facts were personally known to counsel, 19 and which were alleged upon information and belief. Nor does the FAP set forth any 20 reason why Petitioner did not verify his Petition. Accordingly, the First Amended Petition 21 is dismissed, with leave to amend. 22 23 24 25

26 2 The filing of a petition for writ of habeas corpus is analogous to the filing of a civil 27 complaint. See Williams v. Coyle, 167 F.3d 1036, 1038 (6th Cir. 1999). A Magistrate Judge may dismiss a complaint with leave to amend without approval of the District 28 Judge. See McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991). 1 B. The First Amended Petition Does Not Name the Proper Respondent 2 3 Pursuant to the federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. § 2242, which applies to § 2241 4 petitions, “there is generally only one proper respondent to a given prisoner’s habeas 5 petition[, and it is] … ‘the person’ with the ability to produce the prisoner’s body before 6 the habeas court.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434–35 (2004); see 28 U.S.C. 7 § 2242 (requiring a federal habeas petitioner to provide “the name of the person who has 8 custody over him”) (emphasis added). When a habeas petitioner challenges his present 9 physical confinement, “the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the 10 facility where the prisoner is being held, not the Attorney General or some other remote 11 supervisory official.” Padilla, 542 U.S. at 435. Moreover, “jurisdiction lies in only one 12 district: the district of confinement.” Id. at 443. Accordingly, “[w]henever a § 2241 13 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United States, 14 he should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of 15 confinement.” Id. at 447. Here, because Petitioner failed to name only his immediate 16 custodian—the name of the Desert View Annex Detention Facility warden—as 17 Respondent, this Court lacks jurisdiction over Petitioner’s habeas petition. See Doe v. 18 Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1194–95 (9th Cir. 2024) (“[The petitioner’s] failure to name 19 [his immediate custodian as respondent] renders the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction 20 erroneous.”); see also id. at 1199 (“The district court erred in exercising jurisdiction over 21 Doe’s core habeas petition because Doe failed to name his immediate custodian as 22 respondent to his petition ….”). 23 24 C. Order 25 26 If Petitioner wishes to pursue this action, he must file a Second Amended Petition 27 within 30 days from the date of this Order. The Second Amended Petition shall be 28 properly verified and name as the only Respondent the person having immediate custody 1 || over Petitioner, 1.e., the warden or de facto warden of the facility where he is detained. 2 || Petitioner must identify his immediate custodian by name, not simply by title. Petitioner 3 || 1s also urged to use the § 2241 form approved by the Central District (CV-27), a copy of 4 || which is attached. See Local Civil Rule 83-16.1 (“A petition for a writ of habeas 5 || corpus ... shall be submitted on the forms approved and supplied by the Court.’’); see also 6 || 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255, Rule 2(c) (requiring a federal habeas petition to “substantially 7 || follow ... a form prescribed by a local district-court rule”). The Second Amended 8 || Petition shall be complete and shall bear both the designation “Second Amended Petition” 9 || and the case number assigned to this action, 1.e., “CV 24-9364 DDP (PVC).” The Second 10 || Amended Petition shall not refer in any manner to the original Petition or FAP. See 11 || generally 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2255, Rule 2(a) (describing what must be included in a federal 12 || habeas petition). 13 14 Petitioner is explicitly cautioned that the failure to file timely a Second Amended 15 || Petition will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice for 16 || failure to prosecute, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). If Petitioner no 17 || longer wishes to pursue this action, he may use the attached form Notice of Dismissal and 18 || voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 ‘ 23 | DATE: April 15, 2025 huh MNt— 24 PEDRO V.CASTILLO ss 95 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26 27 28