“Summary 27 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 28 1 || palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”
How later courts described this case
- “Summary 27 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 28 1 || palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 OSCAR LEMUS MARTINEZ, Case No. 26-cv-00658-BAS-BLM
12 Petitioner,
ORDER REQUIRING THE
13 v. GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND TO
PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS
14 WARDEN CHRISTOPHER LAROSE,
CORPUS (ECF No. 1)
15 Respondent.
16
17
18 Petitioner Oscar Lemus Martinez filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant
19 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) Petitioner is self-represented. He claims that he has
20 been detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement “since May 27, 2025,” but it
21 appears that he was not detained at the border. (See id.) Petitioner alleges that he received
22 a bond hearing on August 1, 2025, where the Immigration Judge granted bond, but the
23 Government appealed the ruling. (Id.) It appears that the Board of Immigration Appeals
24 (“BIA”) set aside the bond ruling. (See id.)
25 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds that summary dismissal is unwarranted
26 at this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary
27 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory,
28
1 || palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order the
2 Government to respond to the Petition. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows:
3 1. The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than February
4 2026. The Government’s response must address the allegations in the Petition and
5 ||must include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the
6 || Petition. The Government must also address whether Petitioner is a member of the class
7 |) under the Central District’s decision in Maldonado Bautista v. Noem, No. 5:25-CV-01873-
8 || SSS-BFM, 2025 WL 3678485 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 18, 2025), as well as whether the BIA
9 ||applied Matter of Yajure Hurtado, 29 1. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), to Petitioner’s case.
10 2. No Reply from Petitioner will be necessary unless requested by the Court.
11 3. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s
12 || Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order.
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15 DATED: February 5, 2026 (atta Bahar
16 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
7 United States District Court
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
~_9_