Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
25-cv-3626-AGS-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Roberto MACEO RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, Otay Mesa Detention Center,
Defendant.
Case No.: 25-cv-3626-AGS-MSB
ORDER DENYING HABEAS
PETITION (ECF 1)
Self-represented petitioner Roberto Maceo Rodriguez seeks a writ of habeas corpus
under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. At this stage, he need only
make out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. See Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary
dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner
is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules
permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth,
114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any
potential merit, it is not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id.
Though this “any potential merit” standard is low, Maceo Rodriguez’s petition does
not meet it. That is, he does not sufficiently explain why his current immigration detention
is unlawful, so as to require habeas relief. The petition references a prior “I-220B order of
supervision,” which suggests that Maceo Rodriguez was previously ordered removed from
the United States, only to be later released and allowed to stay in the country on an order
of supervision. (See ECF 1, at 2–3.) Although he allegedly “complied with all ICE
requirements and appointments,” immigration officials re-detained him on “August 5,
2025.” (Id.) Yet the petition gives no inkling as to why this re-detention should be
considered unlawful. For example, he does not mention any procedural defects, such as the
denial of “prompt” interview after his arrest. See 8 C.F.R. § 241.13(i)(3). Nor does he
Case 3:25-cv-03626-AGS-MSB Document 2 Filed 12/17/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25-cv-3626-AGS-MSB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
suggest there is any other post-removal-order detention time that might render his current
custodial period unconstitutionally prolonged. See Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 701
(2001) (holding that “six months” is a “presumptively reasonable period of detention” for
those detained under 8 U.S.C. § 1231).
The habeas petition is therefore DENIED. But the Court grants Maceo Rodriguez
leave to amend. By January 16, 2026, he may file an amended petition that remedies the
defects identified above. If he files an amended petition, Maceo Rodriguez must also list
the respondent(s) by name, in their official capacity. See 28 U.S.C. § 2242; Rumsfeld v.
Padilla, 	542 	U.S. 	426, 	435 	(2004) 	(“[I]n 	habeas 	challenges 	to 	present 	physical
confinement—‘core challenges’—the default rule is that the proper respondent is the
warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held.”).
Dated: December 17, 2025
___________________________
Hon. Andrew G. Schopler
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-03626-AGS-MSB Document 2 Filed 12/17/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2