Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Anielka Herrera Mendoza, an immigration detainee proceeding without a lawyer, filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the Southern District of California. She challenges her continued detention at the Otay Mesa Detention Center, and the named respondent is the facility's warden. Judge Dana M. Sabraw issued a short written order on October 16, 2026, after reviewing the petition. The order does not describe any response from the government or any briefing.
The court concluded that the petition was missing crucial information needed to evaluate whether the government should be asked to respond. As examples, it said Herrera Mendoza did not allege when and how she entered the United States and did not allege any details explaining her current detention. The court cited Kourteva v. I.N.S., 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001), which says summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in a petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false. The order does not state the legal basis for her detention, how long she has been held, or what relief she seeks.
The Court’s Holding
The court dismissed the petition with leave to amend, and the order is captioned as dismissing the case without prejudice. The stated reason is a pleading deficiency: the petition lacked enough factual detail for the court to decide whether a response was warranted. This was a screening ruling on the sufficiency of the filing. The court did not decide whether the detention is lawful, whether she is entitled to release or a bond hearing, or the merits of any particular claim.
The dismissal is not a final judgment on the merits because the order leaves a route to continue the case. If Herrera Mendoza wishes to re-open and proceed, she must submit, no later than November 16, 2026, a copy of the order together with a completed First Amended Petition. The Clerk was directed to send her a blank 28 U.S.C. § 2241 form petition for immigration cases and the instructions for completing it. The order imposes no obligation on the respondent, and it does not say what will happen if she misses the deadline.
Key Takeaways
- A self-represented § 2241 petition challenging immigration detention should state when and how the petitioner entered the United States and explain the circumstances of the current detention, because the court identified both gaps as reasons it could not evaluate the petition.
- The ruling is a dismissal with leave to amend, not a decision on the merits, and the court expressly allowed the case to be re-opened through a First Amended Petition.
- The amended petition is due by November 16, 2026, and must be submitted together with a copy of the October 16, 2026 order.
- The Clerk was directed to send the petitioner a blank form petition for immigration cases and instructions for completing it.
- This is a district court order in a single case, is not designated as reported, and carries no precedential weight.
Why It Matters
The order shows how a district court may screen a self-represented immigration habeas petition before requiring the government to answer. The court cited the standard that summary dismissal is reserved for vague, conclusory, incredible or frivolous allegations, and it treated missing basic facts about entry and detention as a reason to require a more complete pleading rather than reaching the merits.
Its reach is limited. It is a brief order of a single district judge, so it has no precedential force beyond this case, and it resolves no question about the lawfulness of the detention. Open questions include whether Herrera Mendoza will file an amended petition by the deadline, what facts it will allege, and, if it states a claim, whether the court will order the respondent to answer. The order also does not state what happens to the case if no amended petition is filed.