(HC) Riego v. Current or Acting Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 VENANCIO ESTEBAN RIEGO, Case No. 1:24-cv-01162-SKO-HC

12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE TO FILE MOTION TO AMEND TO NAME 13 v. A PROPER RESPONDENT

14 CURRENT OR ACTING FIELD OFFICE [THIRTY DAY DEADLINE] DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO FIELD 15 OFFICE, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; 16 CURRENT OR ACTING DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES IMMIGRATION AND 17 CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; CURRENT OR ACTING SECRETARY, UNITED 18 STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; AND CURRENT OR ACTING 19 UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, 20 Respondents.

21 22 Petitioner is a non-citizen detainee proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas 23 corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. He filed the instant petition on March 25, 2024, in the 24 United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (Doc. 1.) On September 30, 25 2024, the District Court for the Northern District issued an order transferring the case to the 26 Eastern District of California, because Petitioner is being detained within the jurisdiction of the 27 Eastern District. (Doc. 8.) Upon review of the petition, the Court finds Petitioner has failed to 1 dismissal of the action. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases1 requires the Court to make a preliminary 4 review of each petition for writ of habeas corpus. The Court must dismiss a petition "[i]f it 5 plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner is not entitled to relief." Rule 4 of the 6 Rules Governing § 2254 Cases; see also Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 7 1990). A petition for habeas corpus should not be dismissed without leave to amend unless it 8 appears that no tenable claim for relief can be pleaded were such leave granted. Jarvis v. Nelson, 9 440 F.2d 13, 14 (9th Cir. 1971). 10 A petitioner seeking habeas corpus relief must name the officer having custody of him as 11 the respondent to the petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 430 (2004) 12 Ortiz-Sandoval v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 891, 894 (9th Cir. 1996). As explained by the Supreme Court 13 in Padilla, the proper respondent in habeas cases “is the warden of the facility where the prisoner 14 is being held, not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official.” Padilla, 542 15 U.S. at 435. 16 Petitioner, a non-citizen, is challenging his ongoing detention at the Golden State Annex 17 (“GSA”) located in McFarland, California. Petitioner names the San Francisco Field Office 18 Director, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Director, the Secretary of the Department 19 of Homeland Security, and the United States Attorney General as respondents in this matter. 20 None of these officials have direct custody of Petitioner, and therefore, none of them are proper 21 respondents. 22 Petitioner’s failure to name a proper respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition 23 for lack of jurisdiction. Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1197 (9th Cir. 2024). However, the 24 Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this defect by amending the petition to name a 25 proper respondent, such as the facility administrator of his facility. Padilla, 542 U.S. at 440 (“the 26

27 1 The Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases may be applied to petitions for writ of habeas corpus other than those brought under § 2254 at the Court’s discretion. See Rule 1 of the Rules Governing Section 1 immediate custodian, not a supervisory official who exercises legal control, is the proper 2 respondent”); West v. Louisiana, 478 F.2d 1026, 1029 (5th Cir. 1973), vacated in part on other 3 grounds, 510 F.2d 363 (5th Cir. 1975) (en banc) (allowing petitioner to amend petition to name 4 proper respondent); Ashley v. State of Washington, 394 F.2d 125 (9th Cir. 1968) (same). In the 5 interests of judicial economy, Petitioner need not file an amended petition. Instead, Petitioner 6 may file a motion entitled "Motion to Amend the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent" 7 wherein Petitioner may name the proper respondent in this action. 8 ORDER 9 Accordingly, Petitioner is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this order in 10 which to file a motion to amend the instant petition and name a proper respondent. Failure to 11 amend the petition and state a proper respondent will result in dismissal of the petition for lack of 12 jurisdiction. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14

15 Dated: October 2, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27