Hall v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center

1
3:26-cv-01409-RBM-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
BURTHNELL ANTHONEY HALL,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION
CENTER, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-01409-RBM-DDL
ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE THE PETITION FOR
WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
[Doc. 1]
On March 5, 2026, Petitioner Burthnell Anthoney Hall (“Petitioner”), proceeding
pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
(Doc. 1.) For the reasons below, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.
I. 	DISCUSSION
The Court must first screen habeas corpus petitions to determine whether they are
subject to summary dismissal. 	See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United
States District Courts R. 4 (2019) [hereinafter “Habeas Rules”]; see Lainez Flores v.
Warden, Case No.: 26-cv-168-JES-VET, 2026 WL 213516, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 27, 2026)
(“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.”). Summary dismissal
is appropriate where “it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached
Case 3:26-cv-01409-RBM-DDL Document 2 Filed 03/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-01409-RBM-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
exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court,” Habeas Rule 4, or
“where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory.” 	Kourteva v. INS, 151 F.
Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (citation omitted).
To survive screening , the petitioner need only make out a claim that is sufficiently
“cognizable” to warrant a return or answer from the government. See Neiss v. Bludworth,
114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). 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). 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.”).
In this case, Petitioner was detained on December 31, 2025, and seeks his
“immediate release from [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s] custody.” (Doc.
1 at 1.) However, Petitioner does not present a claim that would entitle him habeas relief
such as violation of a statute, the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the Immigration
and Nationality Act, or the Administrative Procedure Act.
Petitioner also fails to allege any facts that support grounds for relief. 	Petitioner
claims his “continued detention is unnecessary” because “he has not committed a federal
offense[,] is currently in the process of resolving his immigration[ ] matters[,] . . . works at
Sandestin Investment LLC[,] has extended family in Miami [, and] does not pose a danger
to the community nor a flight risk.” 	(Id.) 	From these minimal facts, the Court cannot
determine whether Respondents plausibly engaged in unlawful conduct. 	Petitioner
provides no facts regarding his immigration status. For example, Petitioner does not state
how long he has resided in the country, when and where he entered the United States, the
nature of his “immigration matters,” whether he has received a bond hearing, whether he
Case 3:26-cv-01409-RBM-DDL Document 2 Filed 03/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-01409-RBM-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
was previously detained by Respondents and released on parole, or whether he is subject
to mandatory detention by Respondents. 	Without this information, the Court cannot
determine whether Petitioner is entitled to habeas relief. As the Petition fails to meet the
screening requirements for a habeas petition, summary dismissal is required. 1
II. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons above, the Petition (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
Petitioner may file an amended petition addressing the issues identified above on or before
April 9, 2026. The amended petition must be complete in itself and may not reference or
incorporate any other prior filings. Failure to file an amended petition on or before April
9, 2026, may result in dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 6, 2026
____________________________________
HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 Petitioner may be interested in contacting Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc. to see if
a Federal Defender can represent Petitioner in this matter.
Case 3:26-cv-01409-RBM-DDL Document 2 Filed 03/06/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3