Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00919/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00919-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 463
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOKHEAN KEO,

Petitioner,

v.

WARDEN OF THE MESA VERDE ICE 

PROCESSING CENTER, et al,

Respondents.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00919-HBK (HC)

ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER’S 

CONSTRUED MOTION AND DIRECTING 

RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE DUPLICATE 

COPY OF MOTION TO DISMISS

(Doc. No. 22)

Petitioner Sokhean Keo, an immigration detainee, is proceeding pro se on his petition for 

writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. No. 1, “Petition”). On October 28, 2024, 

Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the Petition. (Doc. No. 20, “Motion”). On December 4, 

2024, the Court directed that Petitioner respond to the Motion. (Doc. No. 21). On December 26, 

2024, Petitioner filed a response indicating that he did not receive a copy of the Motion

requesting he be mailed a copy of the Motion and given sufficient time to respond. (Doc. No. 

22). The Court liberally construes the response as a motion for extension of time. 

Despite the certificate of service in Respondent's Motion indicating that Respondent 

mailed Petitioner a copy of the motion to dismiss at his address of record, Petitioner states he did 

Case 1:24-cv-00919-HBK Document 23 Filed 12/30/24 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

not receive Respondent's Motion to Dismiss filed with the Court on October 28, 2024. (Doc. No. 

20 at 7). Petitioner requests a copy of the Motion and an extension of time to file a response to 

the Motion. 

Regardless of proceeding in forma pauperis, Petitioner is not entitled to the waiver of 

anything other than court filing fees. Martin v. McNut, 2011 WL 4543039, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 

28, 2011). Nor does Petitioner's pro se or prisoner status entitle him to receive complimentary 

copies. Blair v. CDCR, 2018 WL 1959532, at *6 fn. 2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2018). Nonetheless, in 

an abundance of caution and in order to expedite this matter, the Court will direct Respondent to 

provide a duplicate copy of the October 28, 2024 Motion to Dismiss to Petitioner.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:

1. No later than ten (10) days from the date of docketing of this Order, Respondent shall 

serve Petitioner with a duplicate copy of the October 28, 2024 Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 

No. 20) and file a Notice of Mailing with the Court.

2. Petitioner shall file an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the Motion to Dismiss 

no later than twenty-one (21) days after receipt and re-service of Respondent’s Motion. 

3. Respondent may file a reply no later than seven (7) days after Petitioner’s response. 

4. Failure to comply with this will be construed as a waiver of opposition to the Motion to 

Dismiss consistent with L.R. 230(l) and/or will result in a dismissal of the action as a 

sanction for failing to prosecute this action and/or comply with the Court’s order 

consistent with L.R. 110.

Dated: December 30, 2024 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00919-HBK Document 23 Filed 12/30/24 Page 2 of 2