Martinez Perez v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)

1
3:26-cv-0522-CAB-BJW
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
AARON ESTEBAN MARTINEZ
PEREZ,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-0522-CAB-BJW
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. No. 1]
Petitioner Aaron Esteban Martinez Perez, an immigration detainee proceeding pro
se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 2241. 	[Doc. No. 1
(“Petition”).] For the reasons discussed below, the Court DISMISSES the Petition without
prejudice.
A habeas petition brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is subject to the same screening
requirements that apply to those brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. 	See Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rule(s)”); Habeas Rule
1(b) (providing that district courts may apply the Habeas Rules to habeas petitions that are
not brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). 	Accordingly, a district court “must promptly
examine” the petition and, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition . . . that the petitioner
is not entitled to relief in the district court,” the petition must be dismissed. Habeas Rule
Case 3:26-cv-00522-CAB-BJW Document 3 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-0522-CAB-BJW
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
4; Mayle v. Felix, 545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005). 	A petition must state: (1) all grounds for
relief, (2) facts that sufficiently support each asserted ground; (3) an explanation of how
these facts give rise to a real possibility that the government engaged in unlawful conduct
and/or caused some constitutional harm. Habeas Rules 2(c), 4, and 5(b); Mayle, 545 U.S.
at 655; O’Bremski v. Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990).
While a pro se Petitioner is not held to the standards of pleading and practice
imposed upon members of the bar—he must state with some specificity the facts upon
which he contends his incarceration is unlawful. 	Hardison v. Dunbar, 256 F. Supp. 412,
414–15 (N.D. Cal. 1966). A petitioner that fails to do so is not barred from seeking relief
in the future, he can file an amended petition within the time set by the court.
Here, the totality of Petitioner’s allegations are his identifying details, his date of
detention (October 22, 2025), and that “ICE has not demonstrated valid legal grounds to
continue detention.” [Petition at 1–2.] Petitioner asks the Court to order his release. [Id.
at 2.] 	The Court cannot determine whether there is a real possibility that Respondents
engaged in unlawful conduct or caused constitutional harm from these minimal facts.
Additionally, the Petition is deficient because it fails to name the warden of the
facility where Petitioner is detained as a respondent. Habeas petitioners “challenging their
present physical confinement [must] name their immediate custodian, the warden of the
facility where they are detained, as the respondent to their petition.” Doe v. Garland, 109
F.4th 1188, 1197 (9th Cir. 2024).
For the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. Petitioner
may submit an amended Petition by March 9, 2026. 	If the Court does not receive an
amended Petition by this date, the Clerk of Court shall close the case.
///
///
///
///
///
Case 3:26-cv-00522-CAB-BJW Document 3 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-0522-CAB-BJW
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
Finally, Petitioner may be interested in contacting Federal Defenders of San Diego
to see if a Federal Defender can represent Petitioner in this matter. The telephone number
for Federal Defenders’ San Diego Office is 619-234-8467 (Toll Free: 888-614-9867) and
the El Centro Office is 760-335-3510 (Toll Free: 877-404-9063)
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 4, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00522-CAB-BJW Document 3 Filed 02/04/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3