Zare v. LaRose

1
26-cv-732-JES-DDL
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
MOHAMMED ZARE,
Petitioner,
v.
CHRISTOPHER LAROSE,
Respondent.
Case No. 26-cv-732-JES-DDL
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[ECF No. 1]
Before the Court is Petitioner Mohammed Zare’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1.
Petitioner is a native of Iran who is currently being detained at Otay Mesa Detention
Center. ECF No. 1. He claims to have been detained now for over 10 months, with no
intention to be released in the future. Id.
Upon consideration of a habeas petition under § 2241, the court shall “award the writ
or issue an order directing the respondent to show cause why the writ should not be granted,
unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled
thereto.” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. “Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations
in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”
Kourteva v. I.N.S., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citing Hendricks v.
Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990)).
Case 3:26-cv-00732-JES-DDL Document 2 Filed 02/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
26-cv-732-JES-DDL
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
Here, the only fact that Petitioner has presented to the Court is long how he has been
detained for. In Zadvydas, the Supreme Court held that when the government is unable to
remove an alien within 90 days, the alien may seek review of the reasonableness of their
continued detention under the due process clause through petition for writ of habeas corpus.
533 U.S. at 687. The Court instructed habeas courts to analyze whether continued detention
beyond the 90-day period “exceeds a period reasonably necessary to secure removal,”
based on “the [removal detention] statute’s basic purpose, namely, assuring the alien’s
presence at the moment of removal.” Id. at 699. The Court has held that it is presumptively
reasonable for the government to detain an alien for a period of 6 months while it works to
effectuate his removal after issuing a final order of removal against him. Id. at 701. Beyond
that period, “if removal is not reasonably foreseeable, the court should hold continued
detention unreasonable and no longer authorized by statute” and grant the petition for writ
of habeas corpus. Id. at 699-700.
The Court is missing crucial information from the Petitioner in order to evaluate his
claims of prolonged detention. For example, Petitioner does not indicate how he entered
the United States in the first place, whether he was ever given any parole, the manner under
which he was detained, or what stage his removal proceedings are currently at and whether
he is subject to a final order of removal. Without more information, the Court cannot find
that he states a claim in his petition as it stands.
For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES the Petition without prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to close the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 12, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00732-JES-DDL Document 2 Filed 02/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2