Warden
Von Thanh v. Warden et. al.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 VON THANH, No. 1:25-cv-01871-DAD-DMC (HC) Petitioner,
ORDER
v. WARDEN et. al., Respondents. 16 Petitioner, an immigration detainee proceeding pro se, brings this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Pending before the Court is Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus, ECF No. 1. The proper respondent in habeas cases is the “warden of the facility where the prisoner is being held, not the Attorney General or some other remote supervisory official.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 430 (2004). In § 2241 cases involving non-citizens detained at a private detention facility, the proper respondent is the warden of the private detention facility. Doe v. Garland, 109 F.4th 1188 (9th Cir. 2024). Here, Petitioner failed to fill in the Respondent line with the name of the warden of the facility where he is held. See ECF No. 1, pg. 1. Thus, the Petition will be dismissed and Petitioner will have…