MARIO ENRIQUEZ BARROZ CELIS v. BONDI, et al.

D. Nevada

MARIO ENRIQUEZ BARROZ CELIS v. BONDI, et al.

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided February 10, 2026·No. 2:26-cv-00079·Unknown

Opinion

MARIO ENRIQUEZ BARROZ CELIS, Petitioner, Case No.: 2:26-cv-00079-GMN-DJA vs. ORDER DENYING EX PARTE BONDI, et al., MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF Respondents. Pending before the Court is Petitioner Mario Enrique Barroz Celis’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (ECF No. 6). Respondent Pamela Bondi filed a Response, (ECF No. 11),1 to which Petitioner filed a Reply, (ECF No. 14). Because it does not have jurisdiction to address this Petition, the Court DENIES the Petition without prejudice and with leave to amend. The Petition names only one Respondent: Pamela Bondi. (Pet., ECF No. 1-1). Habeas petitions brought under § 2241 “shall...name the person who has custody over him.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242. Therefore, the “one proper respondent” in habeas petitions challenging continued immigration detention is “the warden of the facility where the [detainee] is being held, not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official.” Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1195 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004)). The current warden at NSDC is John Mattos. (Resp. 3:16–17). While John Mattos was sent a copy of the Petition through CM/ECF, (see Order, ECF No. 3), he is not a named Respondent on the Petition, (Pet., ECF No. 1-1). The Court cannot exercise jurisdiction in this case due to Petitioners failure to name the warden in his petition. See Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th at 1194– 1 Non-party John Mattos also filed a Response, (ECF No. 13), indicating that he takes no position. (holding that the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction over a § 2241 habeas petition was erroneous when the petitioner failed to name the proper respondent). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (ECF No. 1- } 1), is DENIED without prejudice and with leave to amend. Petitioner may file an Amended Petition no later than February 24, 2026. Respondents will then have 7 days after service of the Amended Petition to file a Response. Petitioner may file a Reply no later than 7 days following the filing of the Response. DATED this 10 day of February, 2026. Yj, D Gloria M. 4 arro, District Judge United States’ District Court

Page 2 of 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MARIO ENRIQUEZ BARROZ CELIS, Petitioner, Case No.: 2:26-cv-00079-GMN-DJA vs. ORDER DENYING EX PARTE BONDI, et al., MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF Respondents. Pending before the Court is Petitioner Mario Enrique Barroz Celis’s Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (ECF No. 6). Respondent Pamela Bondi filed a Response, (ECF No. 11),1 to which Petitioner filed a Reply, (ECF No. 14). Because it does not have jurisdiction to address this Petition, the Court DENIES the Petition without prejudice and with leave to amend. The Petition names only one Respondent: Pamela Bondi. (Pet., ECF No. 1-1). Habeas petitions brought under § 2241 “shall...name the person who has custody over him.” 28 U.S.C. § 2242. Therefore, the “one proper respondent” in habeas petitions challenging continued immigration detention is “the warden of the facility where the [detainee] is being held, not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official.” Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1195 (9th Cir. 2024) (quoting Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004)). The current warden at NSDC is John Mattos. (Resp. 3:16–17). While John Mattos was sent a copy of the Petition through CM/ECF, (see Order, ECF No. 3), he is not a named Respondent on the Petition, (Pet., ECF No. 1-1). The Court cannot exercise jurisdiction in this case due to Petitioners failure to name the warden in his petition. See Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th at 1194– 1 Non-party John Mattos also filed a Response, (ECF No. 13), indicating that he takes no position. (holding that the district court’s exercise of jurisdiction over a § 2241 habeas petition was erroneous when the petitioner failed to name the proper respondent). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, (ECF No. 1- } 1), is DENIED without prejudice and with leave to amend. Petitioner may file an Amended Petition no later than February 24, 2026. Respondents will then have 7 days after service of the Amended Petition to file a Response. Petitioner may file a Reply no later than 7 days following the filing of the Response. DATED this 10 day of February, 2026. Yj, D Gloria M. 4 arro, District Judge United States’ District Court

Page 2 of 2

MARIO ENRIQUEZ BARROZ CELIS v. BONDI, et al., (D. Nev. 2026).

Pincite

MARIO ENRIQUEZ BARROZ CELIS v. BONDI, et al. (MARIO ENRIQUEZ BARROZ CELIS v. BONDI, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related