(HC) Kapila v. Garland

BACKGROUND

21 Petitioner is a native and citizen of India who entered the United States in July 2010 as a 22 lawful permanent resident when he was fifteen years old. (ECF No. 1 at 7.2) On October 27, 23 2014, Petitioner was convicted of assault likely to produce great bodily injury and received a 24 nine-day county jail sentence and probation. On July 31, 2019, Petitioner was convicted of 25 1 “[L]ongstanding practice confirms that in habeas challenges to present physical confinement—‘core challenges’— the default rule is that the proper respondent is the warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held . . . .” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 435 (2004). In the immigration detention context, the Ninth Circuit has held that “[u]nder Padilla, [Petitioner] must name his immediate custodian . . . as the respondent to his petition.” Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1197 (9th Cir. 2024). Here, Ron Murray is Petitioner’s custodian at the Mesa Verde Detention Center. (ECF No. 15 at 1 n.1.) Accordingly, the other named Respondents are terminated. criminal threats and received a 288-day county jail sentence and probation. (ECF No. 1 at 7.) On November 24, 2020,…