Von Thanh v. Warden et. al.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: December 19, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-01871
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VON THANH, No. 1:25-cv-01871-DAD-DMC (HC) 12 Petitioner, ORDER 13 v. 14 WARDEN et. al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 Petitioner, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a 18 writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s petition 19 for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1. 20 The proper respondent in habeas cases is the “warden of the facility where the 21 prisoner is being held, not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official.” 22 Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 430 (2004). In § 2241 cases involving non-citizens detained at 23 a private detention facility, the proper respondent is the warden of the private detention facility. 24 Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188 (9th Cir. 2024). Here, Petitioner failed to fill in the Respondent 25 line with the name of the warden of the facility where he is held. See ECF No. 1, pg. 1. Thus, the 26 Petition will be dismissed and Petitioner will have the opportunity to file an amended petition 27 which names the correct Respondent and states all claims and requests for relief. 28 / / / ] Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1, is dismissed 3 with leave to amend; 4 2. Petitioner shall file an amended petition which names the proper 5 respondent and states all claims and requests for relief, within 30 days of the date of this 6 order. 7 || Dated: December 19, 2025 Svc 8 DENNIS M. COTA 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28