Case Name in Immigration Case - Unavailable

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 26-cv-20079-ALTMAN
ROBERTO REYES
MEDINA CARCAMO,
Petitioner,
v.
KROME NORTH SERVICE
PROCESSING CENTER,
Respondent.
__________________________________/
ORDER TO AMEND PETITION
The Petitioner, Roberto Reyes Medina Carcamo, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging his detention in the custody of Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (“ICE”). See Petition [ECF No. 1]. In essence, Medina Carcamo asks us to release him
so that he “can continue [his] case outside while out of custody.” See id. at 7. After careful review, we
find the Petition facially deficient but grant Medina Carcamo leave to file an amended petition.
Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases requires a movant to, among other things,
“specify all the grounds for relief available” and “state the facts supporting each ground[.]” R.
Governing § 2254 Cases 2(c).1 Under the heightened pleading standard that governs habeas cases, a
movant’s “allegations must be factual and specific,” and “[c]onclusory allegations are simply not
enough to warrant a hearing.” Chavez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 647 F.3d 1057, 1061 (11th Cir. 2011)
(citations omitted); see also Borden v. Allen, 646 F.3d 785, 810 (11th Cir. 2011) (noting that habeas
petitions call for “fact pleading” as opposed to the “notice pleading” contemplated under Federal Rule
1 “The district court may apply [the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases] to a [section 2241] habeas
corpus petition[.]” Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (cleaned up).
Case 1:26-cv-20079-RKA Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2026 Page 1 of 5

2
of Civil Procedure 8(a)). “It is the petitioner’s burden to establish his right to habeas relief and he must
prove all facts necessary to show a constitutional violation.” Blankenship v. Hall, 542 F.3d 1253, 1270
(11th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).
The problem with Medina Carcamo’s Petition is that he hasn’t stated any grounds for relief—
nor has he outlined any facts on which those grounds might be based. He begins by telling us that
he’s “been detained by inmigration [sic] [authorities] for nearly 4 months” and that he has a pending
appeal in his immigration case. Petition at 1 (cleaned up). But, when the Petition asked him to “state
every ground . . . that supports your claim that you are being held in violation of the Constitution,”
Medina Carcamo didn’t tell us anything. See id. at 6-7. Instead, he wrote only this:
I would like to humbly request, on behalf of my family and myself, that you grant Bail
so that I can continue my case outside while out of custody. During the parole
program, I was always unde[r] supervision, I attended all my appointments, and I
maintained good behavior throughout those 3 years. I have no intention of escaping,
nor do I consider myself a danger to society.
Id. at 7.
Medina Carcamo may have offered some reasons for an immigration judge to release him on
bond. But he hasn’t suggested that his detention is unreasonable—or that due process mandates a
bond hearing in his case—which is what he must show in a § 2241 petition. See Oscar v. Ripe, 751 F.
Supp. 3d 1324, 1332 (S.D. Fla. 2024) (Middlebrooks, J.) (considering whether the § 2241 petitioner’s
“continued detention without a bond hearing violates his due process rights”) After all, the most we
could do in this § 2241 proceeding is order the immigration judge to give Medina Carcamo a bond
hearing—not release him from ICE custody. See ibid. (denying the petitioner’s “request for release from
custody . . . because ‘[t]he consensus is that ordering a bond hearing is the appropriate remedy when
the length of detention has become unreasonable’” (quoting J.N.C.G. v. Warden, 2020 WL 5046870, at
*7, n.5 (M.D. Ga. Aug. 26, 2020))). Since Medina Carcamo fails to offer any facts for his view that his
detention is unreasonable, his Petition is facially deficient. See Paez v. Sec’y, Fla. Dep’t of Corr., 947 F.3d
Case 1:26-cv-20079-RKA Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2026 Page 2 of 5

3
649, 653 (11th Cir. 2020) (“If a petition does not set forth a sufficient factual basis for habeas relief,
the petition is legally insufficient on its face.” (cleaned up)).
It’s well settled that “[f]ederal district courts must ‘dismiss summarily any habeas petition that
appears legally insufficient on its face.’” Orr v. United States, 800 F. App’x 705, 707 (11th Cir. 2020)
(quoting Borden, 646 F.3d at 810). But we’ll give Medina Carcamo one more chance to file an amended
§ 2241 petition that corrects the deficiencies we’ve outlined in this Order. Medina Carcamo’s amended
petition must meet the pleading standard of Rule 2(c), must be legible, and must be submitted on our
court-approved form for § 2241 petitions. See S.D. FLA . L.R. 88.2(a). We warn Medina Carcamo that,
if he fails to timely file a sufficient amended § 2241 petition, we’ll dismiss this case without further
notice. See FED . R. C IV . P. 41(b).
One more thing. Medina Carcamo hasn’t paid the Clerk’s filing fee or filed a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis (“IFP”). “Parties instituting a civil action in district court are required to pay filing fees,
and each district court, by local rule, may require advance payment of such fees.” Castro v. Director,
F.D.I.C., 449 F. App’x 786, 788 (11th Cir. 2011) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a), (c)). The filing fee for a
petition for writ of habeas corpus is $5.00. See 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Of course, if a litigant cannot afford
to pay a filing fee, he or she may apply to proceed without paying—also known as proceeding IFP.
See id. § 1915(a)(1)–(2). A § 2241 petitioner seeking to proceed IFP must file “the affidavit required by
28 U.S.C. § 1915” and “a certificate from the warden or other appropriate officer of the place of
confinement showing the amount of money or securities that the petitioner has in any account in the
institution.” Rule Governing § 2254 Cases 3(a)(2). We can’t adjudicate Medina Carcamo’s Petition
until he’s either paid the Clerk’s filing fee of $5.00 or submitted a legally sufficient IFP motion under
Rule 3(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. So, when Medina Carcamo files his amended petition,
he must also resolve the filing-fee issue—or we’ll dismiss this case without further notice.
* 	* 	*
Case 1:26-cv-20079-RKA Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2026 Page 3 of 5

4
We therefore ORDER AND ADJUDGE as follows:
1. 	The Petition [ECF No. 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice. By February 27, 2026,
the Petitioner must file an amended petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. The amended petition must be
no longer than 20 double-spaced pages and signed under the penalty of perjury. The Petitioner must
comply with Rule 2(c) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the District Courts by sufficiently
stating (in a legible manner) the facts that support the grounds for relief available to him. The Clerk is
DIRECTED to provide the Petitioner with a copy of this Court’s approved form for 28 U.S.C. §
2241 petitions.
2. 	The amended petition must be labeled “Amended Petition” and must include the case
number referenced above, so that it will be filed in this case. The amended petition will be the sole,
operative pleading in this case, and only the claims listed in the amended petition will be addressed.
See Lowery v. Ala. Power Co., 483 F.3d 1184, 1219 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[A]n amended complaint supersedes
the initial complaint and becomes the operative pleading in the case.”). The Petitioner may not
incorporate by reference any past claims. See S.D. FLA . L.R. 5.1.
3. 	By February 27, 2026, the Petitioner shall either pay the Clerk’s filing fee of $5.00 or,
in the alternative, file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP motion”). If he files an IFP motion,
he must include a supporting financial affidavit and his six-month account statement in accordance
with Rule 3(a) of the Rules Governing § 2254 Proceedings in the District Courts. The Clerk is
DIRECTED to provide the Petitioner with a copy of our “Application to Proceed in District Court
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs (Long Form).”
4. 	If the Petitioner fails to file the amended petition and resolve the filing fee issue on
time and in compliance with our orders, we’ll dismiss this case for failure to prosecute or failure to
comply with court orders. See FED . R. C IV. P. 41(b).
Case 1:26-cv-20079-RKA Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2026 Page 4 of 5

5
5. 	The Clerk shall administratively CLOSE the case. We’ll reopen this case once the
Petitioner files his amended petition in compliance with this Order.
DONE AND ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on January 29, 2026.
ROY K. ALTMAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: 	Roberto Reyes Medina Carcamo, pro se
Case 1:26-cv-20079-RKA Document 3 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/30/2026 Page 5 of 5