Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Stiven Antonio Aguriano Mencias, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The petition, docketed as Doc. No. 1 in Case No. 3:26-cv-06243-CAB-JAC, named Homeland Security and Markwayne Mullin, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, as respondents. The court's two-page order, filed on November 4, 2026, resolved the petition at the screening stage rather than after briefing on the merits.
The petition challenged Mencias's present physical confinement, but it named agency officials rather than the warden of the facility where he is detained as a respondent. The court's order treated that omission as a defect in the choice of respondent, not as a ruling on the merits of whether his detention is lawful.
In a footnote, the order advised Mencias that he may be interested in contacting Federal Defenders of San Diego to see if a Federal Defender can represent him in this matter, reflecting the court's attention to the pro se petitioner's ability to cure the defect.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the petition with leave to amend because it failed to name the warden of the facility where Mencias is detained as a respondent. Quoting Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1197 (9th Cir. 2024), the court explained that habeas petitioners "challenging their present physical confinement [must] name their immediate custodian, the warden of the facility where they are detained, as the respondent to their petition."
The court held that it cannot exercise jurisdiction unless an amended petition is filed that names the warden of the detention facility where Mencias is detained as a respondent. Mencias may file his amended petition in this case by December 2, 2026; if no amended petition is filed, the case will be closed.
The order also directed the Clerk of the Court to provide a copy of this District's latest petition for a writ of habeas corpus in an immigration case, so that Mencias could use the proper form in preparing any amended petition. The order concluded "It is SO ORDERED," was dated November 4, 2026, and was signed by Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo, United States District Judge.
Key Takeaways
- A petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging present physical confinement must name the immediate custodian — the warden of the detention facility — as the respondent, as the Ninth Circuit held in Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188 (9th Cir. 2024).
- The dismissal was expressly with leave to amend, so it is not a final merits judgment on the lawfulness of Mencias's detention; the underlying challenge remains open only if a proper amended petition is timely filed.
- The court treated the failure to name the warden as a defect that prevented it from exercising jurisdiction, not merely as a technical pleading error, because the immediate custodian is the proper respondent.
- Mencias had until December 2, 2026, to file an amended petition naming the warden, and the order states that the case will be closed if no amended petition is filed.
- The Clerk was directed to give Mencias the district's latest immigration habeas petition form, giving the pro se petitioner a concrete tool to cure the respondent defect.
Why It Matters
The order applies the Ninth Circuit's immediate-custodian rule in the immigration-detention context and illustrates how a pro se detainee's habeas petition can be dismissed with leave to amend when the wrong respondent is named. It gives the petitioner a concrete cure path — an amended petition naming the warden by December 2, 2026 — together with the district's latest immigration habeas form, while making clear that the case will be closed if no amendment is filed. The footnote pointing Mencias to Federal Defenders of San Diego underscores that the dismissal was procedural rather than a rejection of the merits.
Because the dismissal was with leave to amend, the order does not decide the merits of Mencias's challenge to his confinement; it resolves only the respondent defect and leaves the underlying claim open solely on the condition that a proper amended petition is timely filed. If no amended petition is filed by the deadline, the case will be closed without reaching the merits.