Hernandez Rodriguez v. Larose

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 ERICK ALEXANDER HERNANDEZ Case No.: 3:25-cv-01897-CAB-VET RODRIGUEZ, [12] ORDER TO RESPOND Petitioner, [13] v. [14] CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., [15] Respondents. [17] On July 25, 2025, Petitioner Erick Rodriguez, a citizen of El Salvador, filed a [18] petition for a writ of habeas corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 against [19] Respondents Christopher J. Larose (Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center), Joseph [20] Freden (Acting Field Office Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement [21] (“ICE”)), Todd M. Lyons (Acting Director, ICE), U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security [22] Kristi Noem, and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi. [Doc. No. 1.] [23] “The Rules Governing § 2254 cases in the United States Courts may be applied to [24] habeas corpus petitions filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 .” Khouanmany v. Painter, No. [25] 2:24-cv-01189-CKD, 2024 WL 4528162 , at *1 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2024) (citing Habeas [26] Rule 1(b)). Under Habeas Rule 4, the Court must “conduct a preliminary review of each [28] 1 || petition” and dismiss a petition if “it plainly appears . . . that the petitioner is not entitled 2 relief.” Id. 3 Petitioner alleges that on June 1, 2025, while driving two passengers for Uber, he 4 || accidentally crossed into Mexico after missing the last U.S. exit and was detained by U.S. 5 ||Customs and Border Patrol upon attempting to re-enter the U.S. and placed into ICE 6 ||custody. Petitioner alleges that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an 7 ||expedited order for his removal. Petitioner asserts that he holds DACA status and is 8 || married to a U.S. citizen (who is pregnant and due any day) and has a U.S. citizen daughter. 9 || He seeks this Court to order that his detention is unlawful, and order either his release or 10 Respondents provide him a bond hearing. Having reviewed the Petition, the Court 11 |/finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. 12 || Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (‘Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the 13 |/allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently 14 || frivolous or false.) (citing Hendricks v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490, 491 (9th Cir. 1990)). 15 || Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Respondents to file a response to the Petition by August 16 2025. 17 It is SO ORDERED. [18] 19 Dated: July 28, 2025 € [20] Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 21 United States District Judge