Maceo Aguilera v. The City of Holtville, CA et al

1
26cv532-LL-AHG
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
y
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
NAYADE MACEO AGUILERA,
Petitioner,
v.
THE CITY OF HOLTVILLE, CA, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26cv532-LL-MSB
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
WITH LEAVE TO AMEND
Petitioner Nayade Maceo Aguilera is a detainee in the custody of the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. On January
28, 2026, she filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF
No. 1 (“Pet.”). Petitioner brings this action against the following Respondents: The City of
Holtville, CA, owner of the Imperial Regional Detention Center, Daniel A. Brightman,
Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement San Diego Field Office, Todd
Lyons, acting Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Kristi Noem,
Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Pam Bondi, U.S. Attorney
General. Id.
Petitioner is a citizen of Cuba who was paroled into the United States on December
23, 2024, with her parole continuing through December 21, 2026. Id. ¶ 3. Petitioner was
Case 3:26-cv-00532-LL-MSB Document 2 Filed 01/28/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26cv532-LL-AHG
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
detained by ICE on July 29, 2025. Id. ¶¶ 3. Petitioner alleges that “[a]t the time of her
detention on July 29, 2025, Petitioner’s parole remained valid and in effect through
December 21, 2026, and she had received no revocation of parole and, to her knowledge,
no revocation of parole was issued prior to her July 29, 2025 detention.” Id. ¶ 3. Petitioner
alleges that her detention violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the
applicable parole statutes and regulations including 8 U.S.C. § 1182(d)(5)(A) and 8 C.F.R.
§ 212.5(e). Id. ¶¶ 46-66. She seeks a writ of habeas corpus directing Respondents to release
her from custody or in the alternative order an individualized bond hearing. Id. at 16-17.
As a threshold matter, the Court finds that Petitioner has failed to name the warden
of the facility where she is detained, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Therefore, the Court
lacks jurisdiction to hear the Petition. See Mukhamadiev v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland
Security, No. 25-cv-1017-DMS-MSB, 2025 WL1208913, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2025)
(“[T]he Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over [petitioner’s] Petition so long as he fails to
name as respondent the warden of the detention facility where he is being detained.”).
Based on the foregoing, the Court DISMISSES Petitioner’s Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1), WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Within thirty (30) days of
entry of this Order, Petitioner may file an amended petition curing the deficiencies noted
above. If Plaintiff fails to amend within the time provided, the Court will enter a final order
dismissing this civil action. See Lira v. Herrera, 427 F.3d 1164, 1169 (9th Cir. 2005).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 28, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00532-LL-MSB Document 2 Filed 01/28/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2