Saul Isaac Hernandez Flores v. Christopher J. Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 4 ||2
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Ruth Bermudez Montenegro (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a verified petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by a detained non-citizen challenging the statutory basis of his detention and the denial of a bond hearing. The court ordered the respondents to show cause why the petition should not be granted, set a briefing schedule, and prohibited the petitioner's transfer outside the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering Respondents to Show Cause“Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written Response on or before Friday, November 14, 2025, at 4:30 p.m.” | agree with court The court determined that summary dismissal was unwarranted because the petition was not vague, conclusory, or frivolous. Requiring a response is the standard procedural step when a habeas petition survives initial screening. |
Setting Briefing Schedule“Petitioner may file a Reply on or before Wednesday November 19, 2025, at 4:30 p.m. The matter will be deemed under submission at that time and the Parties shall await further orders from the Court.” | agree with court The court established a timeline for the respondent's response and the petitioner's reply, which is a standard case management function. |
Prohibiting Transfer of Petitioner“Petitioner SHALL NOT be transferred outside of the Southern District of California pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition.” | agree with court The court issued a status quo order to preserve its jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner while the petition is pending. This is a recognized equitable power of federal courts in habeas proceedings. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for denying summary dismissal of a habeas petition and cites appropriate authority for maintaining the status quo to preserve jurisdiction. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 SAUL ISAAC HERNANDEZ FLORES, Case No.: 3:25-cv-03023-RBM-DDL 10 Petitioner, ORDER: 11 v. (1) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 12 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, et al., THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF 13 Respondents. HABEAS CORPUS; AND 14 (2) SETTING THE BRIEFING 15 SCHEDULE;
16 17 18 On November 6, 2025, Petitioner Saul Isaac Hernandez Flores (“Petitioner”) filed a 19 Verified Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. 20 (Doc. 1.) Petitioner claims his continued detention by the U.S. Department of Homeland 21 Security (“DHS”) is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), as opposed to 8 U.S.C. § 1225, which 22 in the absence of a bond hearing and decision on the merits violates: (1) the Immigration 23 and Nationality Act (“INA”); (2) the Administrative Procedure Act; and (3) the Fifth 24 Amendment’s Due Process Clause. (Id. ¶¶ 28–39.)1 Petitioner therefore “seeks an order 25 compelling the immigration judge to accept jurisdiction to conduct a custody 26 27 28 1 redetermination hearing and afford him a bond decision on the merits.” (Ud. 4 1.) 2 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court concludes that summary dismissal is 3 ||unwarranted at this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 4 ||2001) (“Summary dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are 5 || vague or conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”) (citing Hendricks 6 || v. Vasquez, 908 F.2d 490 (9th Cir. 1990)). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 7 1. Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition 8 should not be granted by filing a written Response on or before Friday, November 9 14, 2025, at 4:30 p.m. The response shall: (1) include all documents or evidence 10 relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition; and (2) make a 11 recommendation regarding the need for an evidentiary hearing on the Petition. 12 2. Petitioner may file a Reply on or before Wednesday November 19, 2025, at 4:30 13 p.m. The matter will be deemed under submission at that time and the Parties shall 14 await further orders from the Court. 15 3. To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, and to maintain 16 the status quo, Petitioner SHALL NOT be transferred outside of the Southern 17 District of California pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition. See Doe v. 18 Bondi, Case No.: 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 19 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while 20 determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition 21 is pending resolution from the court.”) (citing cases). 22 4. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED TO TRANSMIT a copy of the Petition (Doc. 23 1) and this Order to the United States Attorneys’ Office. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 ||DATE: November 10, 2025 7 HON. RUTH BERMUDEZ MONTENEGRO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28