Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

26-cv-977
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
DEIVIS DAVID TERAN HURTADO,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, Otay Mesa Detention Center,
KRISTI NOEM,1 Secretary, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security, and
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS
ENFORCEMENT,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-00977-BTM-DDL
ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE THE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[ECF NO. 1]
Deivis David Teran Hurtado 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.
1 The petitioner named Alejandro Mayorkas, the former Secretary of the Department of Homeland
Security, as a Respondent. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d), the current Secretary, Kristi
Noem, is substituted for Mayorkas.
Case 3:26-cv-00977-BTM-DDL Document 2 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-977
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
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;
(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, Teran Hurtado does not allege facts that support grounds for relief. 	His
petition states that he was detained on January 10, 2026. (ECF No. 1 (“Pet.”), at 1.) He
argues that his detention “violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the
United States Constitution.” (Id.) Yet Teran Hurtado does not provide facts regarding his
immigration status, how long he has resided in the country, when and where he entered the
United States, whether he has granted parole which was revoked—and if so, whether he
was given a reason for the revocation and an opportunity to rebut the reason for
revocation—or whether he is subject to mandatory detention by the Respondents. 	(See
generally Pet.) 	Without this information, the Court cannot determine whether Teran
Hurtado is entitled to habeas relief.
Case 3:26-cv-00977-BTM-DDL Document 2 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-977
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 Teran Hurtado’s petition has not met the screening requirements for a
habeas petition, his petition is DISMISSED without prejudice. 	The Court grants Teran
Hurtado leave to amend his petition within forty-five (45) days. If Teran Hurtado fails to
amend his petition by April 10, 2026, a final judgment of dismissal will be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 25, 2026
___________________________
Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz
United States District Judge
Case 3:26-cv-00977-BTM-DDL Document 2 Filed 02/25/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3