UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Naji Sirhan Abdullah v. Department of Homeland Security Case No. 5:25-cv-01865-SVW-PD Date: September 25, 2025 T itle ,

Present: The Honorable: Patricia Donahue, U.S. Magistrate Judge

Isabel Verduzco N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Petitioner: Attorneys Present for Respondent: N/A N/A

Proceedings (In Chambers): Order to Show Cause Why Petitioner’s

Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Should Not Be Dismissed

On July 17, 2025, Petitioner Naji Sirhan Abdullah (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under

. Dkt. No. 1. At the time of filing the Petition, Petitioner was confined at Adelanto ICE Processing Center-West in Adelanto, California.

.

Petitioner alleges that he is being detained on an immigration charge.

. Petitioner left blank his response to questions regarding information pertaining to earlier challenges of the decision or action he is appealing.

. Petitioner alleges that he was taken into immigration custody on July 8, 2025.

.

Petitioner challenges his detention on the following grounds: (1) Fourth Amendment; (2) Fifth Amendment; (3) Sixth Amendment; and (4) “Fact of Confinement … Petitioner can’t be deported because of political.”

. Petitioner seeks immediate release from detention.

. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Naji Sirhan Abdullah v. Department of Homeland Security Case No. 5:25-cv-01865-SVW-PD Date: September 25, 2025 TitlIe. Discussion ,

Habeas petitions brought by federal prisoners under

are subject to the same screening requirements that apply to habeas petitions brought under

. Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254 (“Habeas Corpus Rules”), Habeas Corpus Rule 1(b) (providing that district courts may apply the Habeas Corpus Rules to habeas petitions that are not brought under § 2254). Accordingly, a district court may summarily dismiss a § 2241 petition before the respondent files an answer, “[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition ... that the petitioner is not entitled to relief.” Habeas Corpus Rule 4; Mayle v. Felix,

(2005). The Petition as currently pled does not state any facts in support of the four grounds for relief. Petitioner merely lists the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments as grounds without alleging any supporting facts. Id. at 6. Petitioner further alleges in ground four that he cannot be “deported because of political” but provides no facts in support of this claim. Id. at 7.

II. Order

The Petition appears subject to dismissal for the reasons stated above. The Court will not make a final determination regarding whether the Petition should be dismissed, however, without giving Petitioner an opportunity to address the issues stated above.

Thus, the Court ORDERS Petitioner to respond no later than October 15, 2025, by choosing one of the following options: 1. File a written response explaining why the Petition should not be dismissed. or

2. File a First Amended Petition that is completely filled out. Petitioner should include information responsive to all of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Naji Sirhan Abdullah v. Department of Homeland Security Case No. 5:25-cv-01865-SVW-PD Date: September 25, 2025 Title questions listed on the habeas form and provide fa, cts in support of each of his grounds for relief.

Failure to file a timely response to this Order as directed above by October 15, 2025, will result in a recommendation to the District Judge that this case be dismissed for failure to prosecute and obey Court orders pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b).

The Deputy Court Clerk is directed to send Petitioner a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under

form.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Attachments:

CV-27 form--Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under

Initials of Preparer : iv