Wiskencia Desulma v. Director, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.

S.D. California

Wiskencia Desulma v. Director, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.

District Court, S.D. California·Decided March 4, 2026·No. 3:26-cv-01324·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WISKENCIA DESULMA, Case No. 26-cv-01324-BAS-JLB

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION FOR 14 DIRECTOR, OTAY MESA LEAVE TO PROCEED IN DETENTION CENTER, et al., 15 FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF Respondents. No. 2); AND 16

17 (2) REQUIRING THE GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND 18 TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF 19 HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1)

20 21 Petitioner Wiskencia Desulma filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 22 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner is self-represented. She claims she is being 23 unlawfully detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement without a bond 24 determination. (See id.) 25 Petitioner has also filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis attesting Petitioner 26 has no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. (ECF No. 2.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 27 Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk shall file the Petition for 28 a Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee. I Further, having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is 2 unwarranted at this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 3 |}2001) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are 4 || vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the 5 ||Court will order the Government to respond to the Petition. Accordingly, the Court 6 || ORDERS as follows: 7 l. The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than March 12, 8 2026. The Government’s response must address the allegations in the Petition and must 9 ||}include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition. 10 || The Government must also address whether Petitioner is a member of the class certified in 11 || Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. 12 Dec. 18, 2025). 13 2. No reply by Petitioner is necessary unless requested by the Court. 14 3. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 15 || Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 || DATED: March 4, 2026 (yatta Baha □□ 19 Hd¢n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 4 United States District Court

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9_

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WISKENCIA DESULMA, Case No. 26-cv-01324-BAS-JLB

12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION FOR 14 DIRECTOR, OTAY MESA LEAVE TO PROCEED IN DETENTION CENTER, et al., 15 FORMA PAUPERIS (ECF Respondents. No. 2); AND 16

17 (2) REQUIRING THE GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND 18 TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF 19 HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1)

20 21 Petitioner Wiskencia Desulma filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 22 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner is self-represented. She claims she is being 23 unlawfully detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement without a bond 24 determination. (See id.) 25 Petitioner has also filed a Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis attesting Petitioner 26 has no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. (ECF No. 2.) Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 27 Petitioner’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk shall file the Petition for 28 a Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee. I Further, having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is 2 unwarranted at this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 3 |}2001) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are 4 || vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the 5 ||Court will order the Government to respond to the Petition. Accordingly, the Court 6 || ORDERS as follows: 7 l. The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than March 12, 8 2026. The Government’s response must address the allegations in the Petition and must 9 ||}include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition. 10 || The Government must also address whether Petitioner is a member of the class certified in 11 || Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-CV-01873-SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. 12 Dec. 18, 2025). 13 2. No reply by Petitioner is necessary unless requested by the Court. 14 3. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 15 || Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 || DATED: March 4, 2026 (yatta Baha □□ 19 Hd¢n. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge 4 United States District Court

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~_9_

Wiskencia Desulma v. Director, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al., (S.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Wiskencia Desulma v. Director, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al. (Wiskencia Desulma v. Director, Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related