Lainez Flores v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center

1
26-cv-168-JES-VET
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
RIDER RUMALDO LAINEZ FLORES,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN OF THE OTAY MESA
DETENTION CENTER,
Respondents.
Case No.: 26-cv-168-JES-VET
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE THE PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 2241
[ECF No. 1]
Before the Court is a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2241 filed by pro se Petitioner, Rider Rumaldo Lainez Flores (“Petitioner”). ECF No. 1,
(“Pet.”).
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. See Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts (“Habeas Rule(s)”); Habeas Rule
Case 3:26-cv-00168-JES-VET Document 3 Filed 01/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26-cv-168-JES-VET
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
1(b) (providing that district courts may apply the Habeas Rules to habeas petitions that are
not brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254). Accordingly, a district court “must promptly
examine” the petition and, “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition ... that the petitioner is
not entitled to relief,” the “judge must dismiss the petition.” Habeas Rule 4; Mayle v. Felix,
545 U.S. 644, 656 (2005). A petition must state: (1) all grounds for relief, (2) facts that
sufficiently support each asserted ground; (3) an explanation of how these facts give rise
to a real possibility that the government engaged in unlawful conduct and/or caused some
constitutional harm. Habeas Rules 2(c), 4, and 5(b); Mayle, 545 U.S. at 655; O'Bremski v.
Maass, 915 F.2d 418, 420 (9th Cir. 1990).
While a pro se Petitioner is not held to the standards of pleading and practice
imposed upon members of the bar—they must, however, state with some specificity the
facts upon which they contend their incarceration is unlawful. Hardison v. Dunbar, 256 F.
Supp. 412, 414-15 (N.D. Cal. 1966). A Petitioner that fails to do so is not barred from
seeking relief in the future, they must merely file a new petition. Id. (citing Sanders v.
United States, 373 U.S. 1, 8 (1963)).
Here, 	Petitioner 	alleges 	that 	he 	was 	detained 	by 	Immigration 	and 	Customs
Enforcement immediately after being released from a Texas prison. Pet at 6. Soon
thereafter, Petitioner filed an asylum claim and was transferred to the Otay Mesa Detention
Center, where he is currently housed. Id. Petitioner alleges further that the proceedings for
his asylum claim are underway. Id. However, the logistical issues his prolonged detention
will force him to continue to encounter have made, and will likely continue to make, it
difficult for him to address his immigration case. Id.
As pled, it appears that Petitioner seeks habeas relief to continue his immigration
proceedings outside of immigration custody. Id. at 7. In the Petition, he does not state facts
regarding: (1) his immigration status, prior to being incarcerated in Texas; (2) the nature
of the crime that he was convicted of, and incarcerated for; (3) whether he is subjected to
mandatory 	detention 	by 	the 	Government; 	(4) 	whether, 	since 	being 	detained, 	the
Government has provided him with a bond determination hearing—and if so, what was the
Case 3:26-cv-00168-JES-VET Document 3 Filed 01/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26-cv-168-JES-VET
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
immigration judge’s determination; (5) the Government’s determination, if any, with
respect to Petitioner’s credible fear claim; or (6) specifically, why his detention is unlawful.
See generally Pet.
This information is critical in ascertaining whether Petitioner is entitled to habeas
relief. 	See 28 U.S.C. § 2241. As this information and/or any facts that can show that
Petitioner’s detention is unlawful are absent from the Petition, the Petition is DISMISSED
without Prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 27, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-00168-JES-VET Document 3 Filed 01/27/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3