Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

1
3:26-cv-01601-RBM-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
ANDREIVER ALFREDO MUNOZ,
Petitioner,
v.
WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION
CENTER,
Respondent.
Case No.: 3:26-cv-01601-RBM-VET
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
[Doc. 1]
On March 13, 2026, Petitioner Andreiver Alfredo Munoz (“Petitioner”) filed a
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 	(Doc. 1.)
For the reasons set forth 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-01601-RBM-VET Document 2 Filed 03/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 3

2
3:26-cv-01601-RBM-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
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 30, 2025, and seeks his
“immediate release from [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s] custody while
his immigration proceedings continue.” 	(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 that he “remains in custody despite having no federal charges filed against him.”
(Doc. 1 at 1.) He also claims he “is currently in the process of resolving his immigration
matters,” has “[s]trong family ties in the United States,” and is not a “danger to the
community [or at] risk of flight.” 	(Doc. 1-2 at 1.) 	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
Case 3:26-cv-01601-RBM-VET Document 2 Filed 03/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 3

3
3:26-cv-01601-RBM-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
nature of his “immigration matters,” whether he has received a bond hearing, whether he
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 20, 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 20, 2026, may result in
dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: March 17, 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-01601-RBM-VET Document 2 Filed 03/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 3