Samuel Esau Hernandez v. Warden of the Mesa Verde Detention Facility, et al.
This text of Samuel Esau Hernandez v. Warden of the Mesa Verde Detention Facility, et al. (Samuel Esau Hernandez v. Warden of the Mesa Verde Detention Facility, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAMUEL ESAU HERNANDEZ, No. 1:25-cv-01676-KES-CDB (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONDENTS TO FILE A RESPONSE 13 v. ORDER SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE 14 WARDEN OF THE MESA VERDE DETENTION FACILITY, et al., ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO 15 SERVE DOCUMENTS Respondents. 16 14-DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Petitioner Samuel Esau Hernandez (“Petitioner”), a federal detainee, proceeds pro se with 19 a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1). On November 28, 20 2025, Petitioner filed the instant petition while in custody of Immigration and Customs 21 Enforcement (“ICE”) at the Mesa Verde Detention Facility, located in Bakersfield, California. Id. 22 Petitioner is currently in the custody of ICE at the Mesa Verde Detention Facility. Id. ¶ 1. 23 Preliminary Screening 24 Writ of habeas corpus relief extends to a person in custody under the authority of the United 25 States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. A district court considering an application for a writ of habeas corpus 26 shall “award the writ or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should 27 not be granted, unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not 28 entitled thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Petitioner alleges that his detention by Respondents for more 1 than two months and 18 days without being afforded a bond hearing violates Petitioner’s 2 constitutional and statutory rights. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 2-3). 3 The Court preliminarily concludes that Petitioner’s petition may be cognizable under 28 4 U.S.C. § 2241. In addition, because Petitioner was incarcerated at Mesa Verde Detention Facility 5 at the time of filing, and that facility lies within the Eastern District of California, this Court has 6 jurisdiction to proceed to the merits of the petition. Malone v. Calderon, 165 F.3d 1234, 1237 (9th 7 Cir. 1999) (“Federal courts have authority to grant writs of habeas corpus ‘within their respective 8 jurisdictions.’”) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2241); see, e.g., Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1197-99 (9th 9 Cir. 2024) (holding that the Eastern District of California exercises jurisdiction over core habeas 10 corpus petitions filed by petitioners confined at a facility within this district). 11 Conclusion and Order 12 This Court has conducted a preliminary review of the petition. It is not clear from the face 13 of the petition whether Petitioner is entitled to relief. Accordingly, pursuant to Habeas Rule 4, the 14 Court HEREBY ORDERS: 15 1. Respondents SHALL FILE a response addressing the merits or seeking dismissal of 16 the Petition within 45 days of the date of service of this order. Respondents shall 17 include with the response any and all transcripts or other documents relevant to the 18 resolution of the issues presented in the petition. Habeas Rule 5. 19 2. Respondents SHALL FILE a Notice of Appearance within 14 days of the date of 20 service of this Order. 21 3. Petitioner’s TRAVERSE to any Answer or OPPOSITION to any Motion to Dismiss 22 filed by Respondent is due on or before 30 days from the date Respondents’ filing. 23 4. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send an electronic copy of this Order and a 24 copy of the Petition and all exhibits to the Office of the United States Attorney for 25 the Eastern District of California, an agent for the appropriate correctional 26 institution, if applicable, and to mail a copy of this order to Petitioner. 27 /// 28 /// 1 All motions shall be submitted on the record and briefs filed without oral argument unless 2 | otherwise ordered by the Court. Local Rule 230(g). All provisions of Local Rule 110 are applicable 3 | to this Order. 4 | IT ISSO ORDERED. > Dated: _ December 2, 2025 | Ww ML LD Kr 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Samuel Esau Hernandez v. Warden of the Mesa Verde Detention Facility, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-esau-hernandez-v-warden-of-the-mesa-verde-detention-facility-et-caed-2025.