Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
25-cv-3275-CAB-MSB
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
RODOLFO JOSE PACHECO SENA,
A#221042111,
Petitioner,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY, et al.,
Respondents.
Case No.: 25-cv-3275-CAB-MSB
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
[Doc. No. 2]
Petitioner Rodolfo Jose Pacheco Sena (“Petitioner”), an immigration detainee
housed at the Otay Mesa Detention Center proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner also filed a motion
to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. No. 2.] Upon review, Petitioner’s request to proceed
in forma pauperis is DENIED because Petitioner has not provided the Court with sufficient
information to determine his financial status.
A request to proceed in forma pauperis must include a completed affidavit with a
statement of all assets showing an inability to pay the $5.00 filing fee. See S.D.Cal. CivLR
3.2. 	The Southern District of California has a standardized application to proceed IFP
which requires a detailed accounting of income and expenses that is signed by the
Case 3:25-cv-03275-CAB-MSB Document 3 Filed 11/25/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
25-cv-3275-CAB-MSB
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
requestor. While Petitioner submitted a short letter generally stating he “ha[s] no income,
property, or funds to pay the required $5 filing fee,” [see Doc. No. 2 at 1], Petitioner has
not submitted a completed application with a statement of all assets in accordance with this
district’s application.
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis. 	[Doc.
No. 2.] Because the Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing
fee or has qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, this case is subject to dismissal without
prejudice. To avoid dismissal of this habeas case, Petitioner must, no later than January
24, 2026: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee OR (2) submit adequate proof of his inability to pay
the fee. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order a blank
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
Given Petitioner’s position as a pro se litigant, the Court notes that the current
Petition is deficient because it fails to name the warden of the facility where Petitioner is
detained. Habeas petitioners “challenging their present physical confinement [must] name
their immediate custodian, the warden of the facility where they are detained, as the
respondent to their petition.” Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1197 (9th Cir. 2024). Even
if Petitioner submits a completed IFP and the Court grants it, the Court cannot exercise
jurisdiction unless the petition is amended to name as respondent the warden of the
detention facility where Petitioner is detained.
Finally, Petitioner may be interested in contacting Federal Defenders of San Diego
to see if a Federal Defender can represent Petitioner in this matter. The telephone number
for Federal Defenders’ San Diego Office is 619-234-8467 (Toll Free: 888-614-9867) and
the El Centro Office is 760-335-3510 (Toll Free: 877-404-9063).
It is SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 25, 2025
Case 3:25-cv-03275-CAB-MSB Document 3 Filed 11/25/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2