Minh Kai v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center

1
3:25-cv-3611-CAB-AHG
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
CAO LE MINH KHAI,
Petitioner,
v.
OTAY MESA IMMIGRATION COURT,
and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
Respondents.
Case No.: 3:25-cv-3611-CAB-AHG
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IFP
[Doc. No. 2]
Petitioner Cao Le Minh Khai (“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 (“IFP”). [Doc. No. 2.] Upon review, Petitioner’s IFP motion is DENIED
because Petitioner has not provided the Court with sufficient information to determine their
financial status.
An IFP motion 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 requestor. 	While
Case 3:25-cv-03611-CAB-AHG Document 3 Filed 12/17/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 2

2
3:25-cv-3611-CAB-AHG
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
Petitioner submitted a short letter generally stating they are “not working and [] do not have
a checking account[,]” [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 IFP motion. [Doc. No. 2.] Because the Court
cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or has qualified to
proceed IFP, this case is subject to dismissal without prejudice. To avoid dismissal of this
habeas case, Petitioner must, no later than January 17, 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 IFP.
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 application 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: December 17, 2025
Case 3:25-cv-03611-CAB-AHG Document 3 Filed 12/17/25 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 2