TOWFIQ HEKMAT HEKMAT v. IMPERIAL REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOWFIQ HEKMAT HEKMAT, Case No. 26-cv-1152-BAS-SBC A249141221, 12 ORDER: Petitioner, 13 v. (1) DENYING MOTION TO 14 PROCEED IN FORMA IMPERIAL REGIONAL DETENTION 15 PAUPERIS (ECF No. 2), AND FACILITY, et al.,

16 Respondents. (2) REQUIRING PETITIONER 17 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PETITION SHOULD NOT BE 18 DISMISSED 19 20 Petitioner Towfiq Hekmat Hekmat, an immigration detainee housed at the Imperial 21 Regional Detention Center in Calexico, California, proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition 22 for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, accompanied by a Motion 23 proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1–2. 24 A request to proceed in forma pauperis must include a completed affidavit with a 25 statement of all assets showing an inability to pay the $5.00 filing fee. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 26 3.2. The Southern District of California has a standardized application to proceed in forma 27 pauperis, which requires a detailed accounting of income and expenses signed by the 28 requestor. While Petitioner has submitted that form, it is entirely blank other than | || Petitioner’s signature, containing no financial information whatsoever. Petitioner has not 2 ||submitted a completed application with a statement of all assets in accordance with this 3 || district’s application. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma 4 || pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) 5 Because the Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee 6 has qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, this case is subject to dismissal without 7 || prejudice. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 3.2; see also R. 1(b), 3(a), Rules Governing Section 2254 8 || Cases (2019). 9 In addition, the Court has reviewed the Petition, and it is blank other than a few 10 boxes checked. (See ECF No. 1.) This means that even if Petitioner pays the $5.00 filing 11 || fee, the Court does not have enough information for this case to proceed. See Kourteva v. 12 || 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (noting a petition is subject to summary 13 || dismissal if it is vague or conclusory). 14 Accordingly, Petitioner is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the Petition should 15 |/not be dismissed for failure to satisfy the filing fee requirement or for failure to provide 16 || sufficient allegations concerning Petitioner’s detention. To avoid dismissal of this habeas 17 || case, Petitioner must, no later than March 18, 2026: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee OR (2) 18 ||}submit adequate proof of Petitioner’s inability to pay the fee. Further, Petitioner should 19 || fill out a new petition form and provide as much information as possible, including 20 |/information about his immigration case and when he was detained by immigration 21 || authorities. Otherwise, this case will be summarily dismissed for lack of sufficient 22 ||information. 23 For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order (1) a blank 24 || application to proceed in forma pauperis and (2) a blank petition for writ of habeas corpus 25 ||under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 DATED: February 25, 2026 yatta Bahar Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge