Osaretin Osazee Jerry v. Warden, Otay Mesa Detention Center
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — Bondi, Ca
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and a concurrent motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court granted the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ordered the respondent to show cause why the petition should not be granted, and stayed the petitioner's removal from the United States or the District to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to proceed in forma pauperis granted“Accordingly, 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 support the decision. |
Order to show cause issued to Respondent“Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written Response by December 22, 2025.” | agree with court In habeas corpus proceedings, particularly those involving detained individuals, it is standard practice for the court to order the custodian to respond to the petition to establish the facts of detention and the basis for it. This procedural step is appropriate. |
Stay of removal ordered to preserve jurisdiction“To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States or 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. This is a recognized equitable power of federal courts in habeas cases to ensure the court can actually adjudicate the petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standard for in forma pauperis status. It appropriately orders a response from the custodian in a habeas case. The stay of removal is supported by the cited Supreme Court precedent (A.A.R.P. v. Trump) and consistent with district court practice in similar cases to preserve the court's ability to adjudicate the petition. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for these procedural orders.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OSARETIN OSAZEE JERRY Case No.: 25-cv-3612-JES-MSB 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING MOTION TO 14 WARDEN, OTAY MESA DETENTION PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; CENTER, 15 Respondent. (2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 16 THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF 17 HABEAS CORPUS;
18 (2) SETTING BRIEFING 19 SCHEDULE; AND 20 (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF 21 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE JURISDICTION 22 23 [ECF Nos. 1, 2]
24 25 Before the Court is Petitioner Osaretin Osazee Jerry’s (“Petitioner”) Petition for Writ 26 of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Concurrently, Petitioner also 27 filed a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis in which he attests he has no 28 means to pay the $5.00 filing fee. ECF No. 2. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 1 || Petitioner’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The Clerk shall file the Petition for a Writ 2 ||of Habeas Corpus without prepayment of the filing fee. 3 Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition 4 should not be granted by filing a written Response by December 22, 2025. Petitioner MAY 5 || FILE an optional Traverse in support of the Petition by January 5, 2026. 6 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 7 ||not be removed from the United States or this District unless and until the Court orders 8 || otherwise. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. 9 June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while 10 || determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is 11 || pending resolution from the court.”) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, 12 ||ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary 13 || restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their 14 || agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation 15 || with them, from removing Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending 16 || further order of this Court’); see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (finding 17 || that federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to 18 || the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25- 19 || CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the 20 || Respondents from removing Petitioner without approval from the court). 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: December 17, 2025 23 “ur Sin, 24 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 5 United States District Judge 26 27 28