Marco Ruiz Mancilla Ruiz v. Christopher J. Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — The Government’s response mu
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an individual detained by ICE, claiming violations of the Fifth Amendment and the INA. The court declined to dismiss the petition summarily and ordered the government to file a response and provide relevant documents.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering the government to respond to the petition for writ of habeas corpus“Therefore, the Court will order the Government to respond to the Petition.” | agree with court The court applied the standard for summary dismissal of habeas petitions, finding the allegations were not vague, conclusory, or frivolous. The decision to proceed to a response is a standard procedural step when a petition survives initial screening. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the standard for summary dismissal and applies it to the facts presented (the court found the petition not subject to summary dismissal). It sets a reasonable deadline for the government to respond. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural order at this stage.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCO RUIZ MANCILLA RUIZ, Case No. 25-cv-02714-BAS-SBC 12 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING THE 13 v. GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., CORPUS (ECF No. 1) 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 On October 14, 2025, Petitioner Marco Ruiz Mancilla Ruiz filed a Petition for Writ 19 of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) In his Petition, Petitioner 20 claims that he is being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in violation of 21 the Fifth Amendment, as well as the Immigration and Nationality Act and its governing 22 regulations. (Id.) 23 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 24 this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 25 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 26 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order the 27 Government to respond to the Petition. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 28 I 1. The Government must file a response to the Petition no later than Monday, 2 || October 27, 2025. The Government’s response must address the allegations in the Petition 3 |}and must include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the 4 || Petition. 5 2. Petitioner may file a reply in support of his Petition no later than Monday, 6 || November 3, 2025. 7 3. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 8 || Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1) and this Order. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 || DATED: October 20, 2025 (yatta Bahar 12 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge B United States District Court 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 a.