Erfan Eftekhari v. Jeremy Casey, Facility Administrator at the Imperial Regional Detention Facility, Gregory J. Archambeault, Director of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement San Diego Field Office, Todd Lyons, Acting Director of U.S. Immigration
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — After the petition has been fully briefed, the Court will 6 || determine whether it is appropriate to take the matter under submission or if oral argument 7 || will be r
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by a detained individual. 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 Monday, December 1, 2025.” | agree with court The order follows standard procedural practice for habeas petitions, requiring the government to respond to the allegations before the court can adjudicate the merits. |
Setting Briefing Schedule“Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 p.m. Tuesday, December 2, 2025.” | agree with court The court established a timeline for the parties to submit their arguments, which is within the court's discretion to manage the docket. |
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 relied on the principle that federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while a petition is pending, citing A.A.R.P. v. Trump and other district court orders to support the stay of removal. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural order initiating the habeas process. It correctly identifies the need for a response from the government and uses established legal principles (citing A.A.R.P. v. Trump) to justify the stay of removal to preserve jurisdiction. The reasoning is sufficient for a preliminary procedural order.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERFAN EFTEKHARI, Case No.: 25-cv-3245-JES-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 14 JEREMY CASEY, Facility administrator PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS at the Imperial Regional Detention 15 CORPUS; Facility, GREGORY J.
16 ARCHAMBEAULT, Director of the U.S. (2) SETTING BRIEFING Immigration and Customs Enforcement 17 SCHEDULE; and San Diego Field Office, TODD LYONS, 18 acting Director of U.S. Immigration and (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF Customs Enforcement, KRISTI NOEM, 19 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE Secretary of the U.S. Department of JURISDICTION 20 Homeland Security, and PAM BONDI, U.S. Attorney General, 21 [ECF No. 1] Respondents. 22 23 Before the Court is Petitioner Erfan Eftekhari’s (“Petitioner’s”) Petition for Writ of 24 Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (“Petition”), filed on November 21, 2025, 25 and transferred to this Court on November 24, 2025. ECF No. 1. 26 Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not 27 be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, December 1, 2025. 28 1 ||The Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues 2 ||raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is 3 ||necessary. Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the Petitioner. 4 || Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 p.m. 5 Tuesday, December 2, 2025. After the petition has been fully briefed, the Court will 6 || determine whether it is appropriate to take the matter under submission or if oral argument 7 || will be required. 8 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 9 ||not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 10 || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 11 (‘Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 12 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 13 court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 14 ||4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 15 || hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 16 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 17 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court’); 18 || see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 19 || injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 20 || over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 21 || Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 22 approval from the court). 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: November 25, 2025 26 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 07 United States District Judge 28