Maria Eugenia Atencio Machado v. Director of the Otay Mesa Detention Center, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — June 11, 2025) 4 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 5 has subject matter jurisdiction ove
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and an application to proceed in forma pauperis filed by a detainee. The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, stayed the petitioner's removal from the district to preserve jurisdiction, and ordered the respondents to show cause why the petition should not be granted.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis granted“The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.” | agree with court The order recites that the petitioner filed a completed application attesting to an inability to pay the filing fee. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, a court must grant IFP status if the applicant demonstrates inability to pay. The recited facts satisfy this requirement. |
Stay of removal of petitioner from the district“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 district court precedents to support the power to issue injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction and prevent irreparable harm. In the context of a pending habeas petition, preventing the removal of the detainee is a standard measure to ensure the court retains subject matter jurisdiction and the ability to provide effective relief. |
Order to show cause and briefing schedule set“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 court sets a procedural schedule for the respondents to respond to the habeas petition. This is a standard procedural step in habeas proceedings to allow the government to address the claims before the court makes a determination on the merits. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for in forma pauperis status and cites appropriate authority for the stay of removal to preserve jurisdiction. The reasoning is concise but directly addresses the motions before the court with relevant legal support.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIA EUGENIA ATENCIO MACHADO, Case No.: 25-cv-3277-JES-JLB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 DIRECTOR OF THE OTAY MESA PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS DETENTION CENTER, et al., 15 Respondents. (2) SETTING BRIEFING 16 SCHEDULE; and 17 (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF 18 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE 19 JURISDICTION 20 [ECF Nos. 1, 2] 21 22 Before the Court is Petitioner Maria Eugenia Atencio Machado’s (“Petitioner”) 23 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. On November 24 19, 2025, Petitioner filed a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis in which 25 she attests that she has no means to pay the $5.00 filing fee on November 19, 2025. ECF 26 No. 2. The Court addresses both filings below. 27 The Court GRANTS Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk 28 shall FILE the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee. 1 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 2 not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. 3 Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 4 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 5 has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 6 the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 7 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 8 hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 9 attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 10 Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this Court”); 11 see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 12 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 13 over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 14 Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 15 approval from the court). 16 Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not 17 be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, December 1, 2025. 18 The Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the issues 19 raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition is 20 necessary. Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the Petitioner. 21 Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition no later than 5:00 p.m. 22 on Tuesday, December 2, 2025. 23 At that point, the matter will be fully briefed. No oral argument will be required, and 24 the Court will take it under submission. 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 // I IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 || Dated: November 25, 2025 4 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28