The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 POUCHON FRANCIQUE, Case No.: 26-cv-3531-RSH-JLB
12 Petitioner,
ORDER DISMISSING PETITION
13 v. FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
14 WARDEN,
15 Respondent.
16
17
On June 12, 2026, petitioner Pouchon Francique filed a petition for writ of habeas
18
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 1. On June 18, 2026, the
19
action was transferred to the undersigned. ECF No. 3.
20
Title 28 of the U.S. Code, Section 2241, provides that “[w]rits of habeas corpus may
21
be granted by the Supreme Court, any justice thereof, the district courts and any circuit
22
judge within their respective jurisdictions.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(a). A detainee bears the
23
burden of demonstrating that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or
24
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
25
Section 2254 Cases in the U.S. District Courts (the “Habeas Rules”) requires summary
26
dismissal of a federal habeas petition “[i]f it plainly appears from the petition and any
27
attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court.” See also
28
1 || Habeas Rule 1(b) (permitting district courts to apply Habeas Rules to Section 2241 habeas
2 || proceedings); Lane v. Feather, 584 F. App’x 843, 843 (9th Cir. 2014) (affirming district
3 || court’s application of Habeas Rule 4 to dismiss Section 2241 petition).
4 This action is Petitioner’s fourth immigration habeas petition that has been assigned
5 ||to the undersigned. See also Case Nos. 26-cv-1126, 26-cv-2304, 26-cv-2722. The most
6 recent of these prior petitions, 26-cv-2722, remains pending.
7 The current Petition requests Petitioner’s release, but does not provide an adequate
8 || legal basis for such relief. Petitioner alleges only in conclusory terms that the immigration
9 judge erred in determining that he was a flight risk. ECF No. 1-2 at 1. However, the relief
10 || for such a claim of error is generally an appeal to the Board of Immigration Appeals. See
11 ||Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th Cir. 2011) (“Here, [the petitioner]
12 || pursued habeas review of the IJ’s adverse bond determination before appealing to the BIA.
13 || This short cut was improper. Leonardo should have exhausted administrative remedies by
14 || appealing to the BIA before asking the federal district court to review the IJ’s decision.”).
15 Petitioner’s allegations do not establish that “[h]e is in custody in violation of the
16 || Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Accordingly,
17 Petition is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case.
18 IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 22, 2026 Jehut C Low
Hon. Robert S. Huie
United States District Judge
22
23
24
25
26
27
28