1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODOLFO JOSE PACHECO SENA, Case No.: 25-cv-3275-CAB-MSB

A#221042111,

12

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

Petitioner, 13 PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS v. 14 [Doc. No. 2]

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

15 SECURITY, et al., 16 Respondents. 17

18 Petitioner Rodolfo Jose Pacheco Sena (“Petitioner”), an immigration detainee 19 housed at the Otay Mesa Detention Center proceeding pro se, filed a Petition for Writ of 20 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner also filed a motion 21 to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. No. 2.] Upon review, Petitioner’s request to proceed 22 in forma pauperis is DENIED because Petitioner has not provided the Court with sufficient 23 information to determine his financial status. 24 A request to proceed in forma pauperis must include a completed affidavit with a 25 statement of all assets showing an inability to pay the $5.00 filing fee. See S.D.Cal. CivLR 26 3.2. The Southern District of California has a standardized application to proceed IFP 27 which requires a detailed accounting of income and expenses that is signed by the 28 1 ||requestor. While Petitioner submitted a short letter generally stating he “ha[s] no income, 2 property, or funds to pay the required $5 filing fee,” [see Doc. No. 2 at 1], Petitioner has 3 submitted a completed application with a statement of all assets in accordance with this 4 || district’s application. 5 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the request to proceed in forma pauperis. [Doc. 6 2.] Because the Court cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing 7 || fee or has qualified to proceed in forma pauperis, this case is subject to dismissal without 8 || prejudice. To avoid dismissal of this habeas case, Petitioner must, no later than January 9 2026: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee OR (2) submit adequate proof of his inability to pay 10 || the fee. For Petitioner’s convenience, the Clerk of Court shall attach to this Order a blank 11 || application to proceed in forma pauperis. 12 Given Petitioner’s position as a pro se litigant, the Court notes that the current 13 || Petition is deficient because it fails to name the warden of the facility where Petitioner is 14 detained. Habeas petitioners “challenging their present physical confinement [must] name 15 ||their immediate custodian, the warden of the facility where they are detained, as the 16 ||respondent to their petition.” Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188, 1197 (9th Cir. 2024). Even 17 ||1f Petitioner submits a completed IFP and the Court grants it, the Court cannot exercise 18 ||jurisdiction unless the petition is amended to name as respondent the warden of the 19 detention facility where Petitioner is detained. 20 Finally, Petitioner may be interested in contacting Federal Defenders of San Diego 21 see if a Federal Defender can represent Petitioner in this matter. The telephone number 22 Federal Defenders’ San Diego Office is 619-234-8467 (Toll Free: 888-614-9867) and 23 || the El Centro Office is 760-335-3510 (Toll Free: 877-404-9063). 24 It is SO ORDERED. 25 26 || Dated: November 25, 2025 OB a Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 28 United States District Judge