Tareq Zakarneh v. Marco Rubio et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 9 10 TAREQ ZAKARNEH, CASE NO. 2:26-cv-01556-DGE 11 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING 12 v. APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND 13 MARCO RUBIO et al., DENYING OTHER REQUESTED RELIEF 14 Respondents. 15

16 Petitioner Tareq Zakarneh has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 17 in the above-entitled action. (Dkt. No. 7.) Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), the Court may 18 permit an indigent litigant to proceed IFP if the litigant submits an affidavit that declares all 19 assets, the nature of the action, and an entitlement to redress. “[A]n affidavit is sufficient which 20 states that one cannot because of his poverty pay or give security for the costs . . . and still be 21 able to provide himself and dependents with the necessities of life.” Rowland v. Cal. Men’s 22 Colony, Unit II Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 203 (1993) (quoting Adkins v. E.I. 23 DuPont de Nemours & Co., 335 U.S. 331, 339 (1948) (internal quotation marks removed). “This 24 1 generally includes incarcerated individuals with no assets and persons who are unemployed and 2 dependent on government assistance.” Portillo v. US Citizenship & Immigr. Servs., No. C21- 3 5312BHS, 2021 WL 3015201, *1 (W.D. Wash. June 2, 2021). A court should “deny leave to 4 proceed in forma pauperis at the outset if it appears from the face of the proposed complaint that

5 the action is frivolous or without merit.” Tripati v. First Nat’l Bank & Tr., 821 F.2d 1368, 1369 6 (9th Cir. 1987). 7 Petitioner’s IFP application establishes his indigency. He is currently detained at the 8 Northwest ICE Processing Center (“NWIPC”) and has been since May 2024. (Dkt. No. 7 at 2.) 9 Further, Petitioner states he has around $62,000 in debt that has been accruing since his 10 detention. (Id.) Petitioner attaches several pages of records to his IFP application detailing his 11 purchases of phone time, mail, and commissary during his detention. (Id. at 3–14.) Based on the 12 foregoing, the Court is satisfied Petitioner appears to have limited funds available to afford the 13 filing fee and GRANTS Petitioner’s IFP application. 14 Notwithstanding, the Court notes there is still no properly filed habeas petition pending in

15 this matter. As the Court identified in its May 8, 2026 order, Petitioner’s habeas petition (Dkt. 16 No. 1) is deficient because it does not identify factual allegations to support a specific cause of 17 action and because it uses language pulled from a plug-and-play form habeas petition. (See Dkt. 18 No. 6 at 2–3.) For the Court to consider and rule on Petitioner’s claims for relief, he must file an 19 amended habeas petition that identifies the specific facts and legal authority that give rise to his 20 claim for relief. 21 Petitioner also attaches to his IFP application a “Motion to Force the Defendant to Give 22 the Plaintiff his Commissary Food Back and Allow Communication with Tacoma District Court 23 Phone . . . Through His Phone or Tablet Account.” (Dkt. No. 7-1.) Petitioner alleges staff at the

24 1 NWIPC have confiscated food he purchased from the commissary and have put restrictions on 2 his ability to assist other detainees with filing habeas petitions. (Id. at 1.) “Challenges to a 3 [petitioner]’s conditions of confinement, however, must be brought in a civil rights complaint 4 rather than a habeas corpus petition.” Smith v. Birkholz, Case No. 2:22-cv-07623-MEMF-PD,

5 2026 WL 1256870, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 7, 2026) (citing Badea v. Cox, 931 F.2d 573, 574 (9th 6 Cir. 1991)); accord. Ramirez v. Galaza, 344 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 2003) (a civil rights action, 7 rather than habeas, is appropriate “where a successful challenge to a prison condition will not 8 necessarily shorten the prisoner’s sentence”). The Court therefore DENIES Petitioner’s motion 9 (Dkt. No. 7-1) because his claims for relief do not fall within the “historic core of habeas 10 corpus[.]” Pinson v. Carvajal, 69 F.4th 1059, 1075 (9th Cir. 2023). If Petitioner wishes to 11 challenge the conditions of his detention, he must initiate a separate lawsuit independent of these 12 habeas proceedings. 13 In conclusion, Petitioner’s IFP application (Dkt. No. 7) is GRANTED. Petitioner’s 14 “Motion to Force the Defendant to Give the Plaintiff his Commissary Food Back and Allow

15 Communication with Tacoma District Court Phone . . . Through His Phone or Tablet Account” 16 (Dkt. No. 7-1) is DENIED. As identified in the Court’s prior order (see Dkt. No. 6), Petitioner 17 must submit his amended petition that addresses the deficiencies identified by the Court no later 18 than June 5, 2026. 19 The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and 20 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address and is further directed to send 21 Petitioner a copy of the Court’s “Petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 – 22 Immigration Cases Information Sheet.” 23

24 1 Dated this 15th day of May 2026. 2 a 3 David G. Estudillo 4 United States District Judge

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24