Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
26cv1509 DMS JLB
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
TOWFIZ HEKMAT HEKMAT,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, Imperial Regional Detention
Facility,
Respondent.
Case No.: 26cv1509 DMS JLB
ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS AND (2) DISMISSING
WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §
2241
Petitioner Towfiq Hekmat Hekmat, a detainee of the Department of Homeland
Security, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and proceeding pro se, has
filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, (see ECF No. 1),
and Motion and Declaration Under Penalty of Perjury in Support of Motion to Proceed in
Forma Pauperis, (see ECF No. 2 (“Mot.”)), in which he attests he has insufficient means
to pay the $5.00 filing fee. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Petitioner’s Motion, and the
Clerk SHALL FILE the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the
filing fee.
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-01509-DMS-JLB Document 4 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
26cv1509 DMS JLB
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 did not include any facts in his Petition. Other than writing his
name, identification number, and place of detention, his Petition is blank. Absent any facts
explaining the basis and circumstances of Petitioner’s detention, and actual claims
explaining why he is entitled to relief, the Petition is DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 16, 2026
Case 3:26-cv-01509-DMS-JLB Document 4 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
26cv1509 DMS JLB
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
Case 3:26-cv-01509-DMS-JLB Document 4 Filed 03/16/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3