S.

E.S. v. Christopher LaROSE, et al.

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaDecember 26, 20253:25-cv-03783California440 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA E.S., Case No.: 25-cv-3783-AGS-JLB Petitioner, ORDER SCREENING PETITION

AND REQUIRING RESPONSE

v. Christopher LaROSE, et al., Respondents. 8 Petitioner E.S. seeks a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging his immigration detention. At this stage, he need only make out a claim that is sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it plainly appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting court to apply Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules permit “summary dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is not so frivolous or 18 …

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.