Rider Rumaldo Lainez Flores v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Center

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 27, 2026
• Docket: 3:26-cv-00168
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RIDER RUMALDO LAINEZ FLORES, Case No.: 26-cv-168-JES-VET

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING WITHOUT 13 v. PREJUDICE THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS 14 WARDEN OF THE OTAY MESA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241 DETENTION CENTER, 15 Respondents. [ECF No. 1] 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 24 2241 filed by pro se Petitioner, Rider Rumaldo Lainez Flores (“Petitioner”). ECF No. 1, 25 (“Pet.”). 26 A habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is subject to the same screening 27 requirements that apply to those brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See Rules Governing 28 Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rule(s)”); Habeas Rule 1 1(b) (providing that district courts may apply the Habeas Rules to habeas petitions that are 2 not brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). Accordingly, a district court “must promptly 3 examine” the petition and, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition ... that the petitioner is 4 not entitled to relief,” the “judge must dismiss the petition.” Habeas Rule 4; Mayle v. Felix, 5 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005). A petition must state: (1) all grounds for relief, (2) facts that 6 sufficiently support each asserted ground; (3) an explanation of how these facts give rise 7 to a real possibility that the government engaged in unlawful conduct and/or caused some 8 constitutional harm. Habeas Rules 2(c), 4, and 5(b); Mayle, 545 U.S. at 655; O'Bremski v. 9 Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990). 10 While a pro se Petitioner is not held to the standards of pleading and practice 11 imposed upon members of the bar—they must, however, state with some specificity the 12 facts upon which they contend their incarceration is unlawful. Hardison v. Dunbar, 256 F. 13 Supp. 412, 414-15 (N.D. Cal. 1966). A Petitioner that fails to do so is not barred from 14 seeking relief in the future, they must merely file a new petition. Id. (citing Sanders v. 15 United States, 373 U.S. 1, 8 (1963)). 16 Here, Petitioner alleges that he was detained by Immigration and Customs 17 Enforcement immediately after being released from a Texas prison. Pet at 6. Soon 18 thereafter, Petitioner filed an asylum claim and was transferred to the Otay Mesa Detention 19 Center, where he is currently housed. Id. Petitioner alleges further that the proceedings for 20 his asylum claim are underway. Id. However, the logistical issues his prolonged detention 21 will force him to continue to encounter have made, and will likely continue to make, it 22 difficult for him to address his immigration case. Id. 23 As pled, it appears that Petitioner seeks habeas relief to continue his immigration 24 proceedings outside of immigration custody. Id. at 7. In the Petition, he does not state facts 25 regarding: (1) his immigration status, prior to being incarcerated in Texas; (2) the nature 26 of the crime that he was convicted of, and incarcerated for; (3) whether he is subjected to 27 mandatory detention by the Government; (4) whether, since being detained, the 28 Government has provided him with a bond determination hearing—and if so, what was the 1 |}immigration judge’s determination; (5) the Government’s determination, if any, with 2 respect to Petitioner’s credible fear claim; or (6) specifically, why his detention is unlawful. 3 || See generally Pet. 4 This information is critical in ascertaining whether Petitioner is entitled to habeas 5 ||relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As this information and/or any facts that can show that 6 || Petitioner’s detention is unlawful are absent from the Petition, the Petition is DISMISSED 7 || without Prejudice. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 || Dated: January 27, 2026

1] Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 2 United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28