Juan Pedro Caal Coc v. Warden, Golden State Annex Detention Facility

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JUAN PEDRO CAAL COC, No. 1:26-cv-02387-DC-DMC-HC A-221-486-285 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER v. 14 WARDEN, GOLDEN STATE ANNEX 15 DETENTION FACILITY, 16 Respondents. 17 18 Petitioner, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of 19 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 together with an application to proceed in forma 20 pauperis. Examination of the in forma pauperis application reveals that Petitioner is unable to 21 afford the costs of suit. Accordingly, the application to proceed in forma pauperis will be 22 granted. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 23 The court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition pursuant to Rule 4 of 24 the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254.1 The petition does not comply 25 with Rule 2(c) of the Federal Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases. Allegations which are 26

27 1 Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254 allows a district court to apply any or all of the rules to other types of habeas corpus petitions including § 2241 28 petitions. 1 unsupported by a statement of specific facts do not warrant federal habeas relief. James v. Borg, 2 24 F.3d 20, 26 (9th Cir. 1994). Moreover, “[f]ederal courts are authorized to dismiss summarily 3 any habeas petition that appears legally insufficient on its face.” McFarland v. Scott, 512 U.S. 4 849, 856 (1994). Thus, in order to satisfy Rule 2(c), facts must be stated, in the petition, with 5 sufficient detail to enable the Court to determine, from the face of the petition, whether further 6 habeas corpus review is warranted.” Frasier v. Hernandez, 2007 WL 1300063, *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 7 30, 2007). 8 Here, the only facts Petitioner provides are the date he was detained and an 9 allegation of assault by another detainee. See ECF No 1, pg. 5. Thus, there are no facts provided 10 to support Petitioner’s claim that he has been denied due process and his detention is 11 unreasonably prolonged. 12 In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 13 1. Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is 14 GRANTED and Petitioner is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis without prepayment 15 of the filing fee in this action. 16 2. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED WITH 17 LEAVE TO AMEND; 18 3. Petitioner shall file an amended petition that provides factual allegations to 19 support each claim and request for relief, within 14 days of the date of this order; and 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / ] 4. In order to ensure this court’s jurisdiction to resolve the pending § 2241 2 petition, Respondent shall not transfer Petitioner outside of this judicial district, pending 3 further order of the court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) (establishing the All Writs Act which 4 empowers the federal courts to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their 5 respective jurisdictions .. . .”); see also F.T.C. v. Dean Foods Co., 384 U.S. 597, 604 6 (1966) (emphasizing that federal courts have the power to “to preserve the court’s 7 Jurisdiction or maintain the status quo by injunction pending review of an agency’s 8 action”). 9 || Dated: April 7, 2026 Ss..c0_, 10 DENNIS M. COTA 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28