Inderjeet Singh v. Patrick Divver; United States Department of Homeland Security; Ryan Hicks; Todd M. Lyons; Kristi Noem; Pam Bondi; Jeremy Casey; All Persons Having Custody of the
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while 8 ||determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and wh
- 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 petitioner facing potential removal. The court granted the motion to enjoin transfer, ordered respondents to show cause by December 24, 2025, and stayed the petitioner's removal to preserve jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting Emergency Motion to Enjoin Transfer“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 binding Supreme Court authority (A.A.R.P v. Trump) and persuasive district court authority to support the power to issue injunctive relief to preserve jurisdiction and prevent irreparable harm. The decision follows from the cited law. |
Requiring a Response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Respondents are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted by filing a written Response by December 24, 2025.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural step in habeas proceedings to allow the respondent to answer the petition. |
Setting Briefing Schedule“Petitioner MAY FILE an optional Traverse in support of the Petition by December 26, 2025.” | agree with court The court sets a reasonable schedule for the parties to present their arguments. |
The order itself: sound — The order relies on a recent Supreme Court case (A.A.R.P v. Trump) and several recent district court cases to support the injunction. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities regarding the preservation of jurisdiction and prevention of irreparable harm.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionOpinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 INDERJEET SINGH, Case No.: 3:25-cv-3671-JES-BLM 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) GRANTING EMERGENCY 14 PATRICK DIVVER; UNITED STATES MOTION TO ENJOIN TRANSFER; DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 15 SECURITY; RYAN HICKS; TODD M. (2) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO 16 LYONS; KRISTI NOEM; PAM BONDI; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF JEREMY CASEY; ALL PERSONS 17 HABEAS CORPUS AND MOTION HAVING CUSTODY OF THE FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING 18 PETITIONER, ORDER; 19 Respondents. (2) SETTING BRIEFING 20 SCHEDULE; AND 21 (3) STAYING REMOVAL OF 22 PETITIONER TO PRESERVE 23 JURISDICTION 24 [ECF No. 1, 4] 25 Before the Court is Petitioner Inderjeet Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant 26 to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. ECF No. 1. Concurrently, Petitioner filed a Motion for a Temporary 27 Restraining Order and Motion to Enjoin Transfer. ECF Nos. 3, 4. Respondents are hereby 28 1 |} ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition should not be granted by filing a 2 || written Response by December 24, 2025. Petitioner MAY FILE an optional Traverse in 3 || support of the Petition by December 26, 2025. 4 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 5 ||not be removed from the United States or this District unless and until the Court orders 6 || otherwise. See Doe v. Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. 7 |{Cal. June 11, 2025) (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while 8 ||determining whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is 9 || pending resolution from the court.”’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, 10 No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary 11 |/restraining order, the Court hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their 12 || agents, employees, successors, attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation 13 || with them, from removing Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending 14 || further order of this Court’); see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (finding 15 || that federal courts have “the power to issue injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to 16 || the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25- 17 CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the 18 Respondents from removing Petitioner without approval from the court). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: December 19, 2025 21 “ur Sin, 22 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 3 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28