Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

26-cv-831
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
JOSE SIERRA HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner,
v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT,
Respondent.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00831-BTM-VET
ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE THE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[ECF NO. 1]
Jose Sierra Hernandez 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-00831-BTM-VET Document 3 Filed 02/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-831
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, Sierra Hernandez does not allege facts that support grounds for relief. 	His
petition states that he was detained on November 27, 2025. (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 Sierra Hernandez’s detention has lasted less
than six months, his Zadvydas claim fails.
Also, Sierra Hernandez does not allege facts regarding his immigration status. 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 Sierra Hernandez is entitled to habeas
relief.
Case 3:26-cv-00831-BTM-VET Document 3 Filed 02/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-831
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, a petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be accompanied by either a $5.00
filing fee or an application to proceed in forma pauperis. See CivLR 3.2; see also Habeas
Rules 1(b), 3(a). Sierra Hernandez has not paid the filing fee and has not moved to proceed
in forma pauperis.
Because Sierra Hernandez’s petition has not met the screening requirements for a
habeas petition, his petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. 	The Court grants Sierra
Hernandez leave to amend his petition within forty-six (46) days. 	Sierra Hernandez’s
amended 	petition 	should 	address 	the 	deficiencies 	discussed 	in 	this 	Order 	and 	be
accompanied by the filing fee or a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 	If Sierra
Hernandez fails to amend his petition by March 31, 2026, a final judgment of dismissal
will be entered.
For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order a blank
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 12, 2026
___________________________
Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00831-BTM-VET Document 3 Filed 02/12/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3