(HC) Le v. Field Office Director, San Francisco Field Office, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — — 8 — UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT — 9 — EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 HUY HOANG LE, Case No. 1:24-cv-01272-EPG-HC 12 Petitioner, ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER LEAVE TO FILE A MOTION TO AMEND THE 13 v. PETITION AND NAME A PROPER RESPONDENT 14 FIELD OFFICE DIRECTOR, SAN FRANCISCO FIELD OFFICE, et al., — 15 — Respondents. — 16 — 17 Petitioner Huy Hoang Le is a federal immigration detainee proceeding pro se with a 18 petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 . 19 Petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for 20 the Northern District of California on August 30, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) On October 16, 2024, the 21 United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order transferring 22 the petition to this Court in light of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Doe v. Garland, 109 23 F.4th 1188 (9th Cir. 2024). (ECF No. 8.) 24 “[L]ongstanding practice confirms that in habeas challenges to present physical 25 confinement—‘core challenges’—the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of 26 the facility where the prisoner is being held . . . .” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004). 27 In Doe, the Ninth Circuit “affirm[ed] the application of the immediate custodian and district of confinement rules to core habeas petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 , including those 1 | filed by immigrant detainees.” Doe, 109 F.4th at 1199. A petitioner’s failure to name a proper 2 | respondent requires dismissal of his habeas petition for lack of personal jurisdiction. Stanley v. 3 | California Supreme Court, 21 F.3d 359, 360 (9th Cir. 1994). However, a court should grant a 4 | petitioner “leave to amend his petition to correct this technical deficiency.” Dubrin v. California, 5 | 720 F.3d 1095, 1100 (9th Cir. 2013). 6 Here, Petitioner is detained at the Mesa Verde Processing Center in Bakersfield, 7 | California. (ECF No. 1 at 2.') The Ninth Circuit has held that “[u]nder Padilla, [Petitioner] must 8 | name his immediate custodian . . . as the respondent to his petition.” Doe, 109 F.4th at 1197. 9 | Petitioner has not named the Facility Administrator of the Mesa Verde Processing Center as a 10 | respondent to his petition. The Court will give Petitioner the opportunity to cure this defect by 11 | amending the petition to name a proper respondent. In the interests of judicial economy, 12 | Petitioner need not file an amended petition. Instead, Petitioner may file a motion entitled 13 | “Motion to Amend the Petition to Name a Proper Respondent” wherein Petitioner may name the 14 | proper respondent in this action. 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner is GRANTED THIRTY (30) 16 | days from the date of service of this order in which to file a motion to amend the petition to 17 | name a proper respondent. Petitioner is forewarned that failure to follow this order and amend 18 | the petition to state a proper respondent will result in a recommendation that the petition be 19 | dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. — 20 — IT IS SO ORDERED. 22| Dated: _ October 21, 2024 [see hy — UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — 28 |! Page numbers refer to the ECF pagination stamped at the top of the page.