Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner Livan Ramos Cuellar, an immigration detainee proceeding without counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. On October 14, 2026, the action was transferred from the Southern District of Florida to the Eastern District of California. On arrival, petitioner had neither paid the $5.00 filing fee nor requested in forma pauperis status. The order does not describe the petition's specific claims, referring only to a claimed violation of constitutional rights.
The petition named the Warden of the Krome North Service Processing Center as respondent. Petitioner has since been transferred to the Central Valley Annex, so the court concluded the Krome North warden is no longer the proper respondent. Relying on two district court decisions recognizing that a court may substitute a respondent sua sponte in a habeas case, the magistrate judge substituted the Warden of the Central Valley Annex. The court then conducted a preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases, which Rule 1(b) allows courts to apply to other habeas petitions, including those under § 2241.
The Court’s Holding
The October 16, 2026 order directs the Clerk to substitute the Warden of the Central Valley Annex as respondent. It gives petitioner 10 days either to pay the filing fee or to file an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and it excuses him from submitting the six-month account statement that would ordinarily accompany such an application. The Clerk is to send him the application form.
On the merits, the court made only a threshold screening determination. Because petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved, respondents must show cause why the writ should not be granted by filing an answer or motion to dismiss within 7 days, citing 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Respondents are warned that failure to respond will be interpreted as non-opposition to granting the requested relief. Petitioner's reply, or opposition to a motion to dismiss, is due 10 days after service of the response. Any reply by respondents to an opposition is due 7 days after service.
The order also requires each unrepresented party to keep the court informed of a current address through a separately captioned notice of change of address. It states that service at the address of record is fully effective under Local Rule 182(f). Nothing in the order grants the writ, directs release, or decides jurisdiction, exhaustion, or the merits of any claim. It is a non-dispositive screening and case-management order, not a final judgment, and it carries no precedential weight.
Key Takeaways
- A court may substitute the current custodian as respondent on its own initiative when a detained petitioner has moved to another facility, as the court did here.
- Petitioner has 10 days to pay the $5.00 fee or file an in forma pauperis application, and the court expressly excused the six-month account statement.
- Respondents have only 7 days to answer or move to dismiss and are warned that silence will be treated as non-opposition to the relief requested.
- The order is a preliminary screening decision: the court found only that petitioner may be entitled to relief if his claimed violation is proved, not that any violation occurred.
- Unrepresented parties must promptly report address changes, and service at the address of record is effective.
Why It Matters
The order is a routine but instructive example of how an Eastern District of California magistrate judge handles a transferred § 2241 petition from a detained noncitizen without counsel. Because habeas relief runs against the person with immediate custody, a move between detention facilities can change the proper respondent. The court corrected that defect itself rather than requiring an amended petition or dismissing the case.
The compressed seven-day response period reflects the expedited approach of 28 U.S.C. § 2243, and the non-opposition warning signals that the court expects a prompt, substantive reply. Much remains open: whether petitioner satisfies the fee requirement, what arguments respondents raise, whether the court has jurisdiction over the claims, and whether any relief is warranted. The order is procedural and gives no guidance on the underlying merits.