The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 HATIM ABDEL MONGY ABDALA Case No.: 3:26-cv-2935-CAB-SBC
BAKER,
12
ORDER:
Petitioner,
13
v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO SEAL,
14
[Doc. No. 10]; and
CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Warden of
15
Otay Mesa Detention Center,
(2) DENYING PETITION FOR A
16
Respondent. WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS.
17
18
19 Petitioner Hatim Abdel Mongy Abdala Baker has filed a second petition for a writ
20 of habeas corpus pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] As a result of a
21 prior habeas petition, Petitioner received a bond hearing pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1226. [See
22 Abdala Baker v. Gordon, No. 3:25-CV-3539-CAB-SBC at Doc. Nos. 4, 5, 8.] At that
23 hearing, the immigration judge (“IJ”) denied bond finding Petitioner was both a danger to
24 the community and a flight risk. [Id. at Doc. No. 8.] Petitioner then filed an opposition to
25 the bond hearing and after additional briefing and review, the Court agreed with
26 Respondents that Petitioner should have exhausted administrative remedies by appealing
27 to the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”) before asking the federal district court to
28 review the IJ’s decision. [Id. (quoting Leonardo v. Crawford, 646 F.3d 1157, 1160 (9th
1 ||Cir. 2011).] Upon review of the briefing for this Petition, the Court maintains that
2 || Petitioner must exhaust his administrative remedies via review by the BIA before pursuing
3 || habeas action in federal district court.!
4 Petitioner also alleges that he suffers from severe medical conditions, “including
5 || prostate cancer requiring surgical intervention, a history of open-heart surgeries, Type II
6 || diabetes, and hypertension—all of which have been inadequately treated in detention.”
7 ||[Doc. No. 6 at 2-3.] Such a challenge to conditions of confinement may be brought in a
8 || civil action, usually under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens, not a habeas claim. Wilson v. Ponce,
9 F. Supp. 3d 1037, 1046 (C.D. Cal. 2020); see also Muhammad vy. Close, 540 U.S. 749,
10 || 750 (2004) (“Challenges to the validity of any confinement or to particulars affecting its
11 ||duration are the province of habeas corpus . . . [while] requests for relief turning on
12 || circumstances of confinement may be presented in a § 1983 action.’”’).
13 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the Petition. The Court also orders
14 || Petitioner’s counsel to provide a copy of this Order to Petitioner and to notify the Court
15 || when this has been done.
16 Finally, the Court GRANTS Respondent’s motion to seal the declaration containing
17 || Petitioner’s private medical information. [Doc. No. 10 (requesting to file Doc. No. 11
18 || under seal). |
19 The Clerk of the Court shall close the case.
20 It is SO ORDERED.
21 Dated: August 5, 2026
23 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo
34 United States District Judge
25
26
! The Court reminds Petitioner’s counsel that an attorney may be subject to sanctions or other discipline
27 || for filing a habeas petition or motion to enforce judgment for a petitioner with a previously adjudicated
3g ||petition and no new facts or circumstances. See also Singh v. Warden of Imperial Regional Detention
Facility, et al., No. 3:26-cv-154-BAS-MSB; Bah v. Diwver, et al., No. 3:26-cv-1453-BAS-DDL.