Owen Mukiibi Kiwana v. Christopher G. Larose, in his official capacity as Warden of CCA Detention facility, Daniel Brightman, in his official capacity as Field Office Director of the Immigration & Customs Enforcement and Removal Operations San Diego Field Office
- Proceeding
- original
- Outcome
- other — June 5 ||4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 6 || hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- James E. Simmons (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order filed by a detained individual. The court ordered a stay of the petitioner's removal from the district to preserve jurisdiction and set a schedule for the government to respond to the petition.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
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 decision to stay removal to preserve jurisdiction is a standard procedural measure in habeas cases involving detained individuals to ensure the court retains subject matter jurisdiction over the person while the petition is pending. The cited authorities support the court's inherent power to issue such injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm and preserve jurisdiction. |
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 Monday, December 29, 2025.” | agree with court Setting a briefing schedule and requiring a response is a standard case management function. The deadlines provided are reasonable for a TRO/Habeas petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a preliminary procedural order. It correctly identifies the need to preserve jurisdiction by staying removal, which is a well-established practice in habeas corpus cases involving detained individuals. The authorities cited, while recent and some from other districts, support the proposition that courts have the power to issue such stays. The order does not reach the merits of the habeas petition, so no substantive legal error is apparent.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OWEN MUKIIBI KIWANA, Case No.: 25-cv-3678-JES-SBC 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) STAYING REMOVAL OF 14 CHRISTOPHER G. LAROSE, in his PETITIONER TO PRESERVE official capacity as Warden of CCA 15 JURISDICTION Detention facility, DANIEL 16 BRIGHTMAN, in his official capacity as (2) SETTING BRIEFING Field Office Director of the Immigration & 17 SCHEDULE; and Customs Enforcement and Removal 18 Operations San Diego Field Office; (3) REQUIRING A RESPONSE TO KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as 19 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS Secretary of the Department of Homeland CORPUS and MOTION FOR 20 Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TEMPORARY RESTRAINING HOMELAND SECURITY, 21 ORDER Respondents. 22 [ECF Nos. 1, 2] 23 24 Before the Court is Petitioner Owen Mukiibi Kiwana’s Petition for Writ of Habeas 25 Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 26 (“TRO”), which were filed on December 19, 2025. ECF Nos. 1, 2. 27 To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling in this matter, Petitioner shall 28 not be removed from this District unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See Doe v. | || Bondi, Case. No. 25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979 at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 2 || (‘Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether it 3 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from 4 || the court.”’) (citing cases); A.M. v. LaRose et al., 25-cv-01412, ECF No. 2 (S.D. Cal. June 5 ||4, 2025) (“Pursuant to Petitioner’s request for a Temporary restraining order, the Court 6 || hereby (1) RESTRAINS and ENJOINS Respondents, their agents, employees, successors, 7 || attorneys, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, from removing 8 || Petitioner A.M. from the United States or this District pending further order of this □□□□□□□□ 9 || see also A.A.R.P v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 97 (2025) (Federal courts have “the power to issue 10 injunctive relief to prevent irreparable harm to the applicant and to preserve [] jurisdiction 11 || over the matter.”); Nguyen v. Scott, No. 2:25-CV-01398, 2025 WL 2097979, at *3 (W.D. 12 || Wash. July 25, 2025) (enjoining the Respondents from removing Petitioner without 13 || approval from the court). 14 Respondents are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE as to why the Petition and TRO 15 ||}should not be granted by FILING a Response no later than 5:00 p.m. on Monday, 16 ||December_29, 2025. The Response shall include any documents relevant to the 17 determination of the issues raised in the Petition and address whether an evidentiary 18 || hearing on the Petition and TRO is necessary. Respondents SHALL SERVE a copy of the 19 Response on the Petitioner. Petitioner may FILE an optional Traverse in support of the 20 || Petition no later than 5:00 p.m. on Wednesday, December 31, 2025. Thereafter, the Court 21 || will take the matter under submission, no oral argument will be held unless otherwise 22 || ordered. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 || Dated: December 19, 2025 26 Honorable James E. Sunmons Jr. 07 United States District Judge 28