Oscar Pavon-Aguiar v. Warden of the California City Detention Facility

Opinion

OSCAR PAVON-AGUIAR (A-NUMBER: Case No. 1:26-cv-4966-DAD-JDP 220-356-104), Petitioner, v. WARDEN OF THE CALIFORNIA CITY Respondent. Petitioner, an immigration detainee who is representing himself, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, I must examine the habeas corpus petition and order a response to the petition unless it “plainly appears” that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.1 Petitioner alleges three claims: (1) he was arrested for driving under the influence; (2) he was transferred from local custody to ICE custody, where the conditions were allegedly poor; and (3) he has a “very serious” health condition that “the medical staff is not qualified to handle.” ECF No. 1 at 6. These claims are not cognizable under habeas because they do not allege that 1 This rule may be applied to petitions brought under § 2241. See Rule 1(b) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. petitioner is being detained in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States.2 Accordingly, it “plainly appears” that petitioner is not entitled to relief, and his petition is dismissed without prejudice. See Rule 4 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. Under these circumstances, I find that the interests of justice require the appointment of counsel. See 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(a)(2)(B); Weygandt v. Look, 718 F.2d 952, 954 (9th Cir. 1983). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is DISMISSED without prejudice to refiling. 2. The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order together with a copy of petitioner’s application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 on the Federal Defender, Attention: Habeas Appointment. 3. Within seven days of this order, the appointing authority for the Eastern District of California shall identify counsel and send counsel’s contact information to ncannarozzi@caed.uscourts.gov, and counsel will be added as counsel for petitioner. If counsel is not a member of the Eastern District of California Criminal Justice Act Panel, within seven days of this Order the Federal Defender shall file a motion to appoint counsel as CJA counsel pro hac vice. 4. Within fourteen days of petitioner’s counsel appearing, petitioner shall file an amended petition. 5. Within seven days after the amended petition is served, respondent must file a response to the amended petition. 6. A response may be one of the following: A. An answer addressing the merits of the amended petition. Any argument by respondent that petitioner has procedurally defaulted a claim must be raised in the answer, which must also address the merits of petitioner’s claims. 2 Claims challenging the conditions of confinement, including inadequate medical care, are not proper under section 2241. Instead, these claims arise under Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). See Shook v. Apker, 472 F. App’x 702 (9th Cir. 2012). ] B. A motion to dismiss the amended petition. 7. Within seven days after the amended petition is served, respondent must file any documents necessary for resolving the issues presented in the amended petition. 8. If respondent files an answer to the amended petition, petitioner may file a traverse within seven days after the answer is served. If no traverse is filed within seven days, the amended petition and answer will be deemed submitted. 9. If respondent moves to dismiss, petitioner must file an opposition or statement of non- opposition within seven days after the motion is served. Any reply to an opposition to the motion to dismiss must be filed within seven days after the opposition is served. The motion to dismiss will be considered submitted twenty-one days after the motion is served or when the reply is filed, whichever comes first. See Local Rule 230(1). IT IS SO ORDERED. ( ie — Dated: _ July 2, 2026 q———_ JEREMY D. PETERSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE