1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAO LE MINH KHAI, Case No.: 3:25-cv-3611-CAB-AHG

12 Petitioner, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 13 v. PROCEED IFP

14 OTAY MESA IMMIGRATION COURT, [Doc. No. 2] and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE 15 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 16 Respondents. 17

18 Petitioner Cao Le Minh Khai (“Petitioner”), an immigration detainee housed at the 19 Otay Mesa Detention Center proceeding pro se, filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus 20 pursuant to

. [Doc. No. 1.] Petitioner also filed a motion to proceed in 21 forma pauperis (“IFP”). [Doc. No. 2.] Upon review, Petitioner’s IFP motion is DENIED 22 because Petitioner has not provided the Court with sufficient information to determine their 23 financial status. 24 An IFP motion must include a completed affidavit with a statement of all assets 25 showing an inability to pay the $5.00 filing fee. See S.D.Cal. CivLR 3.2. The Southern 26 District of California has a standardized application to proceed IFP which requires a 27 detailed accounting of income and expenses that is signed by the requestor. While 28 1 || Petitioner submitted a short letter generally stating they are “not working and [] do not have 2 ||a checking account|,]” [see Doc. No. 2 at 1], Petitioner has not submitted a completed 3 || application with a statement of all assets in accordance with this District’s application. 4 Accordingly, the Court DENIES the IFP motion. [Doc. No. 2.] Because the Court 5 ||}cannot proceed until Petitioner has either paid the $5.00 filing fee or has qualified to 6 || proceed IFP, this case is subject to dismissal without prejudice. To avoid dismissal of this 7 ||habeas case, Petitioner must, no later than January 17, 2026: (1) pay the $5.00 filing fee 8 ||OR (2) submit adequate proof of his inability to pay the fee. For Petitioner’s convenience, 9 || the Clerk of Court SHALL attach to this Order a blank application to proceed IFP. 10 Given Petitioner’s position as a pro se litigant, the Court notes that the current 11 || Petition is deficient because it fails to name the warden of the facility where Petitioner is 12 || detained. Habeas petitioners “challenging their present physical confinement [must] name 13 immediate custodian, the warden of the facility where they are detained, as the 14 respondent to their petition.” Doe v. Garland,

(9th Cir. 2024). Even 15 Petitioner submits a completed IFP application and the Court grants it, the Court cannot 16 || exercise jurisdiction unless the petition is amended to name as respondent the warden of 17 || the detention facility where Petitioner is detained. 18 Finally, Petitioner may be interested in contacting Federal Defenders of San Diego 19 || to see if a Federal Defender can represent Petitioner in this matter. The telephone number 20 || for Federal Defenders’ San Diego Office is 619-234-8467 (Toll Free: 888-614-9867) and 21 El Centro Office 1s 760-335-3510 (Toll Free: 877-404-9063). 22 Itis SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: December 17, 2025 ( (jp — 24 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28