Obdulio Reyes Benitez v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi, U.S. Attorney General; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Gregory J.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — June 12 4, 2025) (“Pursuant
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order filed by a detained immigration petitioner. The court ordered a stay of the petitioner's removal to preserve jurisdiction, set a briefing schedule for the respondents to show cause, and indicated its intent to consolidate the TRO motion with the merits determination under Rule 65(a)(2).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Stay of Petitioner's Removal“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 relies on the inherent power of federal courts to preserve jurisdiction and prevent irreparable harm while a petition is pending. The cited authorities (Doe v. Bondi, A.M. v. LaRose, A.A.R.P v. Trump, Nguyen v. Scott) support the proposition that courts can enjoin removal to maintain jurisdiction over habeas petitions. This is a standard procedural measure in immigration habeas cases to ensure the court can actually hear the case. |
Order to Show Cause and Briefing Schedule“Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition and TRO should not be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 2, 2025.” | agree with court The court sets a specific deadline for the government to respond to the habeas petition and TRO motion. This is a standard case management order to expedite the review of an emergency motion and a habeas petition involving a detained individual. |
Consolidation of TRO and Merits Determination“the Court intends to consolidate the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order with a determination on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2).” | agree with court The court cites Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2) and Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep't of Lab. & Indus. to justify consolidating the TRO motion with the merits of the underlying petition. Rule 65(a)(2) allows a court to consolidate a motion for a preliminary injunction with the trial on the merits. While typically applied to PI motions, courts often apply this logic to TROs in habeas contexts to avoid duplicative proceedings, especially when the TRO is sought to preserve jurisdiction for the merits hearing. The notice provided satisfies the 'clear and unambiguous notice' requirement cited in Slidewaters. |
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 sets a reasonable and expedited briefing schedule appropriate for a TRO/habeas matter. It correctly cites Rule 65(a)(2) and Ninth Circuit precedent (Slidewaters) to support the consolidation of the TRO motion with the merits determination, providing the necessary notice to the parties. The reliance on recent district court orders and a Supreme Court case (A.A.R.P v. Trump) for the jurisdiction-preserving injunction is appropriate.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OBDULIO REYES BENITEZ, Case No.: 25-cv-3298-JES-DEB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) STAYING REMOVAL OF 14 KRISTI NOEM, SECRETARY, U.S. PETITIONER TO PRESERVE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 15 JURISDICTION SECURITY; PAMELA BONDI, U.S. 16 ATTORNEY GENERAL; TODD (2) SETTING BRIEFING LYONS, ACTING DIRECTOR, 17 SCHEDULE; and IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 18 ENFORCEMENT; GREGORY J. (3) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO ARCHAMBEAULT, DIRECTOR, SAN 19 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS DIEGO FIELD OFFICE, IMMIGRATION CORPUS AND TEMPORARY 20 AND CUSTOMS, CHRISTOPHER J. RESTRAINING ORDER; LACROSE, SENIOR WARDEN, OTAY 21 MESA DETENTION CENTER; 22 EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR [ECF Nos. 1, 2] IMMIGRATION REVIEW; 23 IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS 24 ENFORCEMENT; AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 25 SECURITY, 26 Respondents. 27 28 1 Before the Court is Petitioner Obdulio Reyes Benitez’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 2 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order 3 (“TRO”). ECF Nos. 1, 2. Petitioner paid the associated fee this action, filed it, and the TRO, 4 on November 25, 2025. Id. The Court addresses both filings below. 5 A. Stay of Petitioner’s Removal 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 B. Petition and TRO 22 Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition and TRO 23 should not be granted by filing a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 24 2, 2025. The Response shall include any documents relevant to the determination of the 25 issues raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary hearing on the Petition 26 and/or TRO is necessary. Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the Response on the 27 Petitioner. Petitioner may file an optional Traverse in support of the Petition and TRO no 28 later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 3, 2025. Upon receipt of the Response, the 1 |} Court will consider the matter fully briefed, no oral argument will be held unless otherwise 2 || ordered, and the matter will be taken under submission. 3 Finally, the Court provides notice to the Parties that it intends to consolidate the 4 || Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order with a determination on the merits under Rule 5 65(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see also Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep't of 6 || Lab. & Indus., 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the court can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) 7 ||by giving "clear and unambiguous notice"). In other words, the Court intends to resolve 8 || both the Petition and the TRO. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: November 26, 2025 i Sa— Sin, 12 Honorable James E. Simmons Jr. B United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28