Louis v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement ICE et al

1
26-cv-278-RSH-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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JEAN DENIS LOUIS,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT,
Respondent.
Case No.: 26-cv-278-RSH-AHG
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
On January 16, 2026, petitioner Jean Denis Louis filed a petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1.
Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 2241, provides that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may
be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit
judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). A detainee bears the
burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts (the “Habeas Rules”) requires summary
dismissal of a federal habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” See also
Habeas Rule 1(b) (permitting district courts to apply Habeas Rules to Section 2241 habeas
Case 3:26-cv-00278-RSH-AHG Document 2 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-278-RSH-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
proceedings); Lane v. Feather, 584 F. App’x 843, 843 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district
court’s application of Habeas Rule 4 to dismiss Section 2241 petition).
The Petition does not explain how Petitioner’s detention is in violation of federal
law. Petitioner states that he has been detained since November 24, 2025, and “remains in
custody despite being in the process of obtaining asylum.” ECF No. 1 at 1. Petitioner’s
detention for a period of less than three months pending his submission of an asylum
application or an immigration court’s adjudication of such an application, pursuant to
statute,1 does not violate due process. Additionally, the Petition, addressed to the Court as
a letter, is defective in that it fails to name a respondent.
It plainly appears that Petitioner is not entitled at this time to obtain from this Court
the relief he seeks in the Petition, namely, release on his own recognizance or “under a
minimal bond.”
Accordingly, the Petition is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close
the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 22, 2026
____________________
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
1 See 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b)(1)(B)(ii) (providing that where a noncitizen is found to have
a credible fear or persecution, “the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the
application for asylum”).
Case 3:26-cv-00278-RSH-AHG Document 2 Filed 01/22/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2