Miguel Santiago Ramirez v. Christopher J. Larose, Senior Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; Director, San Diego Field Office, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement, Enforcement & Removal Operations; Todd M. Lyons, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a Motion for Show Cause filed by a detained immigration petitioner. It ordered respondents to show cause why the petition should not be granted, set a briefing schedule, and stayed the petitioner's removal from the district to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering Respondents to Show Cause“Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, November 28, 2025.” | agree with court The court is exercising its inherent authority to manage the docket and ensure the government responds to a facially valid habeas petition. Requiring a response is a standard procedural step in § 2241 litigation. |
Setting Briefing Schedule“Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, December 1, 2025. At that point, the matter will be fully briefed.” | agree with court The court is setting reasonable deadlines for the parties to brief the merits of the habeas petition. This is within the court's discretion to manage the case. |
Staying Removal of Petitioner“To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall not be removed from 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 the proposition that federal courts have the power to issue injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction and prevent irreparable harm (loss of jurisdiction) while a habeas petition is pending. This is a well-established principle in immigration habeas cases to prevent the government from rendering the petition moot by removing the petitioner. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the need to preserve jurisdiction in a habeas case involving a detained individual by staying removal. It relies on a recent Supreme Court case (*A.A.R.P. v. Trump*) and several recent district court orders from the same district and other districts to support this action. The briefing schedule is reasonable. The order is a standard procedural order in this type of case.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MIGUEL SANTIAGO RAMIREZ Case No.: 25-cv-3257-JES-VET 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 14 CHRISTOPHER J. LAROSE, Senior PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center; 15 CORPUS; Director, San Diego Field Office, U.S.
16 Immigration & Customs Enforcement, (2) SETTING BRIEFING Enforcement & Removal Operations; 17 SCHEDULE; and TODD M. LYONS, Acting Director, U.S.
18 Immigration & Customs Enforcement; (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF KRISTI NOEM, Secretary, U.S. 19 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE Department of Homeland Security; JURISDICTION 20 PAMELA BONDI, U.S. Attorney General; and DAREN K. MARGOLIN, 21 Director, Executive Office for [ECF Nos. 1, 2] 22 Immigration Review, 23 Respondents. 24 25 26 // 27 // 28 // 1 Before the Court is Petitioner Miguel Santiago Ramirez’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for 2 Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Petitioner filed the 3 Petition and paid the associated fee on November 21, 2025. Id. On November 24, 2025, 4 Petitioner filed a Motion for the Court to order Respondents to show cause as to why the 5 Petition and should not be granted. ECF No. 2. The Court addresses both filings below. 6 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 7 not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 8 Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 9 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 10 has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 11 the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 12 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 13 hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 14 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 15 Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court”); 16 see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 17 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 18 over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 19 Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 20 approval from the court). 21 Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not 22 be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Friday, November 28, 2025. 23 The Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues 24 raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is 25 necessary. Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the Petitioner. 26 Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 p.m. 27 on Monday, December 1, 2025. 28 // 1 At that point, the matter will be fully briefed. No oral argument will be required, and 2 Court will take it under submission. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: November 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