Filippo Eleuteri v. Gregory J. Archambault, et al.
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — 2001) (“Summary 7 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 8
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and an ex parte Motion for Injunctive Relief filed by a petitioner detained by ICE. The court ordered the government to respond to the petition, denied the ex parte request for a temporary restraining order, and provided notice of its intent to consolidate the injunctive relief motion with the merits determination under Rule 65(a)(2).
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Ordering the Government to respond to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Therefore, the Court will order the Government to respond to the Petition.” | agree with court The court applied the standard from Kourteva v. INS, finding that the petition was not vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous. This is the correct procedural step for a facially valid habeas petition. |
Denial of ex parte request for a temporary restraining order“Thus, the Court will instead consider the Motion for Injunctive Relief under Rule 65(a) and provide the Government with an opportunity to respond.” | agree with court The court correctly noted that ex parte TROs are reserved for extraordinary circumstances and that the court's preference is for notice and an opportunity to respond. Citing Granny Goose Foods and Reno Air Racing, the court declined to issue an ex parte TRO and instead set a briefing schedule under Rule 65(a). |
Providing notice of intent to consolidate the Motion for Injunctive Relief with the merits determination under Rule 65(a)(2)“Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: ... 1. The Government must file a response to the Petition and the Motion for Injunctive Relief no later than December 24, 2025.” | agree with court The court cited Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus. for the proposition that a court can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) by giving clear and unambiguous notice. The order explicitly states the intent to consolidate, satisfying the notice requirement. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the relevant legal standards for habeas petitions and temporary restraining orders. It cites appropriate authorities for each decision and provides clear notice of its intent to consolidate the motions under Rule 65(a)(2). The reasoning is sound and directly addresses the motions before the court.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FILIPPO ELEUTERI, Case No. 25-cv-03620-BAS-DDL 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) REQUIRING THE 14 GREGORY J. ARCHAMBRAULT, et al., GOVERNMENT TO RESPOND 15 Respondents. TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (ECF No. 1); 16 17 (2) SETTING BRIEFING SCHEDULE ON MOTION FOR 18 INJUNCTIVE 19 RELIEF (ECF No. 2); AND 20 (3) PROVIDING NOTICE UNDER 21 RULE 65(a)(2)
22 23 On December 16, 2025, Petitioner Filippo Eleuteri filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas 24 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. (ECF No. 1.) In his Petition, Petitioner claims that 25 he is being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) in violation of the 26 Immigration and Nationality Act, the Fifth Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure 27 Act. (Id.) 28 1 In addition, Petitioner filed an Ex Parte Emergency Application for Temporary 2 Restraining Order and Order for Immediate Release (“Motion for Injunctive Relief”). 3 (ECF No. 2.) Petitioner asks the Court to order his immediate release from ICE custody 4 “on recognizance or minimal bond.” (Id.) 5 Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 6 this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 7 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 8 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order the 9 Government to respond to the Petition. 10 Turning to the Motion for Injunctive Relief, the Court denies the ex parte request for 11 a temporary restraining order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). “While temporary restraining 12 orders may be heard in true ex parte fashion (i.e., without notice to an opposing party), the 13 Court will do so only in extraordinary circumstances. The Court’s strong preference is for 14 the opposing party to be served and afforded a reasonable opportunity to file an 15 opposition.” Standing Order for Civil Cases § 9; see also Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. 16 Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 438– 17 39 (1974) (discussing ex parte temporary restraining orders and their “stringent 18 restrictions”); accord Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 1131 (9th 19 Cir. 2006) (same). Thus, the Court will instead consider the Motion for Injunctive Relief 20 under Rule 65(a) and provide the Government with an opportunity to respond. 21 Finally, the Court provides notice to the parties that it intends to consolidate the 22 Motion for Injunctive Relief with a determination on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2). See 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see also Slidewaters LLC v. Wash. State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 24 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the court can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) by giving “clear 25 and unambiguous notice”). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 26 1. The Government must file a response to the Petition and the Motion for 27 Injunctive Relief no later than December 24, 2025. The Government’s response must 28 | |}address the allegations in the Petition and must include any documents relevant to the 2 || determination of the issues raised in the Petition. 3 2. Petitioner may file a reply in support of his Petition and the Motion for 4 || Injunctive Relief no later than December 31, 2025. 5 3. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 6 || Office with a copy of the Petition (ECF No. 1), the Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 7 ||2), and this Order. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 || DATED: December 17, 2025 ii ly A (Dipharb 11 Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge United States District Court 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 □□□