Rodolfo Jose Pacheco Sena, A#221042111 v. Department of Homeland Security, et al.

Opinion

RODOLFO JOSE PACHECO SENA, Case No.: 25-cv-3275-CAB-MSB A#221042111, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO Petitioner, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. [Doc. No. 2] DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, et al., Respondents.

Petitioner Rodolfo Jose Pacheco Sena (“Petitioner”), an immigration detainee housed at the Otay Mesa Detention Center proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. No. 2.] Upon review, Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED because Petitioner has not provided the Court with sufficient information to determine his financial status. A request to proceed in forma pauperis must include a completed affidavit with a statement of all assets showing an inability to pay the $5.00 filing fee. See S.D.Cal. CivLR 3.2. The Southern District of California has a standardized application to proceed IFP which requires a detailed accounting of income and expenses that is signed by the requestor. While Petitioner submitted a short letter generally stating he “ha[s] no income, property, or funds to pay the required $5 filing fee,” [see Doc. No. 2 at 1], Petitioner has submitted a completed application with a statement of all assets in accordance with this district’s application. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. 2.] Because the Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or has qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, this case is subject to dismissal without prejudice. To avoid dismissal of this habeas case, Petitioner must, no later than January 2026: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee OR (2) submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order a blank application to proceed in forma pauperis. Given Petitioner’s position as a pro se litigant, the Court notes that the current Petition is deficient because it fails to name the warden of the facility where Petitioner is detained. Habeas petitioners “challenging their present physical confinement [must] name their immediate custodian, the warden of the facility where they are detained, as the respondent to their petition.” Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1197 (9th Cir. 2024). Even 1f Petitioner submits a completed IFP and the Court grants it, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction unless the petition is amended to name as respondent the warden of the detention facility where Petitioner is detained. Finally, Petitioner may be interested in contacting Federal Defenders of San Diego see if a Federal Defender can represent Petitioner in this matter. The telephone number Federal Defenders’ San Diego Office is 619-234-8467 (Toll Free: 888-614-9867) and the El Centro Office is 760-335-3510 (Toll Free: 877-404-9063). It is SO ORDERED. Dated: November 25, 2025 OB a Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge