(HC) McSweeney v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Facility
Emmanuel McSweeney v. Warden of the Otay Mesa Detention Facility, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 12 at 2.) He represents 27 he intends to file a motion before the Immigration Judge in Miami, Florida to “reconsider 28 or reopen his removal proceedings to show that he is a citizen
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed by a detainee asserting Bahamian citizenship and procedural defects in his detention. The court ordered the government to produce specific documents regarding the revocation of release and the 2020 removal decision, set a hearing for the TRO, and issued a limited order prohibiting the removal or transfer of the petitioner prior to the hearing.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order to produce documents“the Court ORDERS Respondents to file the following additional documents or evidence, to the extent they exist, on or before October 3, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.” | agree with court The court ordered the production of documents relevant to the petitioner's claims regarding the revocation of release and the prior removal decision. This is a standard discovery or evidentiary order to assist in the adjudication of the pending TRO and habeas petition. |
Hearing set on TRO“the Court SETS a hearing on the TRO for October 3, 2025 at 2 p.m. in Courtroom 5B of the Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse.” | agree with court The court scheduled a hearing to address the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, allowing both parties to present arguments and evidence before a final decision on the TRO is made. |
Limited TRO issued (Status Quo Order)“To maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with Respondents SHALL NOT remove Petitioner from the United States, or transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of California, before the hearing.” | agree with court The court issued a limited order to maintain the status quo pending the TRO hearing. Given the imminent threat of removal to Haiti and the petitioner's claim of citizenship in another country, preventing removal or transfer is a standard and appropriate interim measure to preserve the court's jurisdiction and the petitioner's rights while the motion is pending. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural step in the litigation. It does not make a final ruling on the merits of the TRO or the habeas petition but rather sets the stage for a hearing by ordering the production of key documents and issuing a limited status quo order. The reasoning is implicit in the need to preserve the status quo and gather evidence before the hearing. The authorities cited are those raised by the parties, and the court's actions are consistent with standard practice in such cases.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EMMANUEL MCSWEENEY, Case No.: 3:25-cv-02488-RBM-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER SETTING OCTOBER 3, 13 v. 2025 HEARING ON TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 14 WARDEN OF THE OTAY MESA ORDER DETENTION FACILITY, et al., 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 On September 15, 2025, Petitioner Emmanuel McSweeney (“Petitioner”) filed a 19 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (Doc. 1.) 20 The Court set a briefing schedule on the Petition (Doc. 6) and Respondents filed a Return 21 to Petition (“Return”) on September 30, 2025. (Doc. 9.) Petitioner’s Reply is due October 22 7, 2025. (Doc. 6.) After the Court granted Petitioner’s renewed Motion for Appointment 23 of Counsel (Doc. 10) and appointed Federal Defenders of San Diego, Inc., Petitioner filed 24 a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) on October 1, 2025. (Doc. 12.) 25 Petitioner asserts in the TRO that he faces immediate irreparable harm in the forms 26 of his current detention and his anticipated removal to Haiti. (Doc. 12 at 2.) He represents 27 he intends to file a motion before the Immigration Judge in Miami, Florida to “reconsider 28 or reopen his removal proceedings to show that he is a citizen of the Bahamas,” and argues 1 a TRO (1) releasing him from detention and (2) prohibiting Immigration and Customs 2 Enforcement (“ICE”) from removing him to Haiti while he litigates in Florida is necessary 3 to preserve the status quo. (Id. at 3.) Petitioner claims he is likely to succeed on the merits 4 because he can prove that he is a citizen of the Bahamas and should be removed to that 5 country under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(b)(2)(A)(i)-(ii), and because ICE failed to follow its own 6 regulations when it did not provide to Petitioner (1) notice of the reasons for revocation of 7 his release, (2) a prompt initial informal interview, or (3) an opportunity to respond to the 8 reasons for revocation. (Id. at 9–15 (citing 8 C.F.R. §§ 241.4(1), 241.13(i)(2-3)).) 9 Respondents have not yet had an opportunity to respond to the TRO. But in the 10 Return, Respondents note ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (“ERO”) obtained a 11 travel document for Haiti for Petitioner on September 30, 2025, and “is currently working 12 on placing the Petitioner on the next available flight to Haiti, which is anticipated to occur 13 within a week.” (Doc. 9 at 4.) Respondents also argue that Petitioner is lawfully detained 14 under 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a) and Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678 (2001). (Id. at 5–6.) 15 I. ORDER 16 Having reviewed the Petition, the Return, and the TRO, the Court ORDERS 17 Respondents to file the following additional documents or evidence, to the extent they 18 exist, on or before October 3, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.: 19 1. Any documents or other evidence reflecting the government’s determination, 20 either before or after Petitioner’s arrest on March 18, 2025, that Petitioner’s 21 release should be revoked. 22 2. The Notice of Revocation of Release issued to Petitioner. 23 3. Any documents or other evidence reflecting Petitioner’s ability to respond to the 24 reasons for revocation during his informal interview. 25 4. Any documents or other evidence reflecting the Immigration Judge’s May 21, 26 2020 decision, including the country that was designated Petitioner’s country of 27 removal. 28 1 Additionally, the Court SETS a hearing on the TRO for October 3, 2025 at 2 p.m. in Courtroom 5B of the Edward J. Schwartz United States Courthouse. To 3 || maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, 4 ||and other persons who act in concert or participation with Respondents SHALL NOT 5 ||remove Petitioner from the United States, or transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern 6 || District of California, before the hearing. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || DATE: October 2, 2025 et Besrnidkr, Moines D 10 ON. RUTH BERMGDEZ! MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28