Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Petitioner, an immigration detainee proceeding without counsel, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Eastern District of California against the warden of the Golden State Annex Detention Facility and other respondents. He also asked the court to appoint counsel and to let him proceed in forma pauperis. The district court referred the matter to a magistrate judge, who issued this order. The order does not describe the substance of petitioner's constitutional claims.
After reviewing petitioner's affidavit, the magistrate judge concluded that he cannot afford the costs of the action. The court then conducted a preliminary review under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases Under Section 2254, which Rule 1(b) permits courts to apply to § 2241 petitions. During that review, the court consulted the Online Detainee Locator System maintained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. According to that official website, as of October 20, 2026, petitioner is no longer in ICE custody. A footnote explains that courts may take judicial notice of undisputed information on official government websites, citing Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b) and Daniels-Hall v. National Education Association, 629 F.3d 992, 999 (9th Cir. 2010). The order does not say whether petitioner was released, transferred, or removed.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). On preliminary review, it found that petitioner may be entitled to the requested relief if the claimed violation of constitutional rights is proved. That is a screening determination only. The court did not decide the merits, did not grant the writ, and did not dismiss the petition.
Based on that screening, the court directed respondents to show cause why the writ should not be granted, by filing an answer or motion to dismiss within seven days of the order, citing 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If petitioner has been removed, respondents must say so in their response. The court warned that a failure to respond will be interpreted as non-opposition to granting the relief requested in the petition.
The order also sets the briefing schedule. Petitioner's reply or traverse is due within ten days after service of the answer or motion to dismiss, and respondents' reply to any opposition to a motion to dismiss is due within seven days after service of the opposition. Each party proceeding without counsel must promptly report address changes through a separate Notice of Change of Address, and service at the address of record is fully effective under Local Rule 182(f). The court deferred ruling on the request for appointment of counsel until it has reviewed respondents' response.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a screening and case-management ruling that grants fee-waiver status but does not resolve the habeas claims or grant any release.
- The preliminary review found only that petitioner may be entitled to relief if his allegations are proved, which is not a finding that any constitutional violation occurred.
- Respondents have seven days to answer or move to dismiss and must disclose whether petitioner has been removed.
- The ICE locator website's report that petitioner is no longer in custody raises an open question about whether the petition remains live, and respondents are expected to address it.
- The request for appointed counsel remains pending; the court deferred it rather than denying it.
Why It Matters
This is a docket order by a magistrate judge and carries no precedential weight. Its value is practical. It shows how a court in the Eastern District of California screens an immigration-detention petition under § 2241 by borrowing the Section 2254 habeas rules and ordering a prompt response under § 2243.
The order also shows the court's attention to custody status. By noting that the ICE locator no longer lists petitioner in custody and requiring respondents to report any removal, the court signals that his current status may affect whether the case can proceed. Nothing has been decided on that point. The merits, any mootness or other threshold defect, and the appointment of counsel all remain open.