Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

26-cv-575
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
MIGUEL JOSE ROSAS RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT, and WARDEN, Otay
Mesa Detention Center,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00575-BTM-MSB
ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE THE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[ECF NO. 1]
Miguel Jose Rosas Rodriguez has petitioned the Court for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	After reviewing the petition, the Court concludes that it
must be dismissed.
“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.” 	Lainez Flores v.
Warden, 2026 WL 213516, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2026) (citing Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in the United States District Courts R. 1(b) (2019) [hereinafter Habeas Rules]).
Under these screening requirements, a habeas petition must:
(1) specify all the grounds for relief available to the petitioner;
Case 3:26-cv-00575-BTM-MSB Document 2 Filed 02/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-575
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
(2) state the facts supporting each ground;
(3) state the relief requested;
(4) be printed, typewritten, or legibly handwritten; and
(5) be signed under penalty of perjury by the petitioner or by a person
authorized to sign it for the petitioner under 28 U.S.C. § 2242.
Habeas Rules 2(c). A petition from a litigant representing himself is held to “less stringent
standards” than a petition drafted by lawyers. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)
(quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). But pro se litigants still “must follow
the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants,” such as satisfying the habeas
screening requirements. 	King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987), overruled on
other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 925 (9th Cir. 2012). If it “plainly
appears from the petition” that the requirements were not met, the Court “must dismiss the
petition.” Habeas Rules 4. The dismissal does not bar the petitioner from seeking habeas
relief in the future. Sanders v. United States, 373 U.S. 1, 8 (1963) (“The inapplicability of
res judicata to habeas . . . is inherent in the very role and function of the writ.”).
Here, Rosas Rodriguez does not allege facts that support grounds for relief. 	His
petition states that he was detained on January 15, 2026. (ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”), at 2.) He
argues that his detention is “arbitrary and prolonged,” violating due process under
Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). 	(Pet., 2.) 	Yet Zadvydas held that “the
government’s detention of a removable alien for up to six months is presumptively
reasonable.” 	Lema v. Immigr. & Naturalization Serv., 341 F.3d 853, 856 (9th Cir. 2003)
(citing Zadvydas, 533 U.S. at 701). Because Rosas Rodriguez’s detention has lasted less
than six months, his Zadvydas claim fails.
Also, Rosas Rodriguez does not allege facts regarding his immigration status besides
“ASYLUM IN PROGRESS.” (Pet., 1.) He does not state how long he has resided in the
country, whether he is subject to mandatory detention by the Respondents, whether he has
received a bond hearing, or whether the Respondents have determined his asylum status.
(See generally Pet.) Without this information, the Court cannot determine whether Rosas
Rodriguez is entitled to habeas relief.
Case 3:26-cv-00575-BTM-MSB Document 2 Filed 02/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-575
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
Because Rosas Rodriguez’s petition has not met the screening requirements for a
habeas petition, his petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. 	The Court grants Rosas
Rodriguez leave to amend his petition within forty-five (45) days. If Rosas Rodriguez fails
to amend his petition by March 19, 2026, a final judgment of dismissal will be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 2, 2026
___________________________
Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00575-BTM-MSB Document 2 Filed 02/02/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3