FILADELFO RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ v. PATRICK DIVVER, San Diego Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal Operations, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s requ
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed by an immigration detainee. It ordered the government to show cause why the petition should not be granted, set a briefing schedule and hearing date, and stayed the petitioner's removal to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order to Show Cause“Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, October 29, 2025.” | agree with court The order to show cause is a standard procedural mechanism in habeas corpus proceedings to allow the respondent to answer the petition. It is a routine step in the litigation process. |
Stay of Removal“To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States or this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise.” | agree with court The court cites A.A.R.P. v. Trump and other district court orders to support its authority to enjoin removal to preserve jurisdiction. This is a recognized power of federal courts in habeas cases to prevent mootness. |
Briefing Schedule and Hearing Set“The Court sets forth the following: ... 4. Finally, the Court SETS an Order to Show Cause Hearing for Friday, October 31, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4B.” | agree with court Setting a schedule for response and hearing is within the court's inherent case management authority and is necessary to resolve the petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural order in a habeas corpus case. It correctly identifies the need to preserve jurisdiction by staying removal, citing appropriate Supreme Court authority (A.A.R.P. v. Trump) and persuasive district court authority. It sets a reasonable schedule for the government to respond and for a hearing to be held. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural order of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Case No.: 25-cv-2868-JES-AGH FILADELFO RODRIGUEZ-SANCHEZ 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 14 THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF PATRICK DIVVER, San Diego Field 15 HABEAS CORPUS; Office Director, Enforcement and 16 Removal Operations, United States (2) SETTING A BRIEFING Immigration and Customs Enforcement 17 SCHEDULE AND MOTION (ICE); CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, HEARING; and 18 Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of 19 (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF Homeland Security; UNITED STATES PETITIONER TO PRESERVE 20 DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND JURISDICTION SECURITY (DHS); PAMELA BONDI, 21 Attorney General of the United States; [ECF NO. 1, 2] 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW (EOIR); 23 DAREN K. MARGOLIS Director EOIR; 24 in their official capacities 25 Respondents. 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Before the Court is Petitioner Filadelfo Rodriguez-Sanchez’s Petition for Writ of 2 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (ECF No. 1) and Motion for Temporary 3 Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 2). Petitioner filed the Petition and 4 Motion and paid the required filing fee on October 23, 2025. ECF Nos. 1, 2. 5 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 6 not be removed from the United States or this District unless and until the Court orders 7 otherwise. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. 8 Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while 9 determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is 10 pending resolution from the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, 11 ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary 12 restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their 13 agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation 14 with them, from removing Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending 15 further order of this Court”); see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (finding 16 that federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to 17 the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25- 18 CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the 19 Respondents from removing Petitioner without approval from the court). 20 The Court sets forth the following: 21 1. Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the 22 Petition should not be granted by filing a written Response no later than 5:00 23 p.m. on Wednesday, October 29, 2025. 24 2. Petitioner SHALL SERVE on Respondents copies of both the Petition and 25 this Order as soon as practicable and SHALL FILE proof of such service no 26 later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, October 24, 2025. 27 3. Petitioner MAY FILE an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later 28 than 5:00 p.m. on October 30, 2025. 1 4. Finally, the Court SETS an Order to Show Cause Hearing for Friday, October 2 31, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. in Courtroom 4B. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: October 24, 2025 6 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 23