Rodolfo Daniel Gomez Gomez v. Jeremy Casey, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas petition and motion for a temporary restraining order filed by an immigration detainee challenging his classification as an 'applicant for admission' subject to mandatory detention. The court ordered the respondent to file a response to the petition and the motion by December 26, 2025, and set a hearing for January 8, 2026.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order requiring respondent to answer the habeas petition and respond to the motion for injunctive relief“By December 26, 2025, respondent must answer the petition and respond to the injunctive-relief motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard for summary dismissal under the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases (applied to § 2241 petitions via Rule 1(b)). The petitioner alleged a specific statutory misclassification (1225 vs. 1226) that has been found to have merit in numerous recent district court decisions. Because the claim is not 'clearly not cognizable' or 'frivolous,' the court was required to order a response rather than dismiss. |
Scheduling of oral argument and reply deadline“Any reply by petitioner must be filed by January 2, 2026. The Court will hold oral arguments on the petition and injunctive-relief motion on January 8, 2026, at 3:00 p.m.” | agree with court This is a procedural scheduling order within the court's discretion to manage the docket. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the procedural standard for screening a habeas petition. It accurately cites Ninth Circuit precedent (Neiss) regarding the threshold for summary dismissal. It supports its finding that the petition has 'potential merit' by citing a substantial number of recent, persuasive district court decisions from across the country that have reached the same conclusion on the specific statutory issue raised. The reasoning is direct and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Rodolfo Daniel GOMEZ GOMEZ, Case No.: 25-cv-3674-AGS-AHG 4 Petitioner, ORDER REQUIRING RESPONSE 5 v. 6 Jeremy CASEY, et al., 7 Respondents. 8 9 Petitioner Rodolfo Gomez Gomez, who is in immigration detention, seeks a writ of 10 habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and moves for a temporary restraining order. (See 11 ECF 1; ECF 2.) 12 As for his habeas petition, at this stage he need only make out a claim that is 13 sufficiently cognizable to warrant a response. See Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in 14 the United States District Courts, Rule 4 (authorizing summary dismissal “if it plainly 15 appears from the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to 16 relief”); id., Rule 1(b) (permitting application of Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases to 17 any “habeas corpus petition”). In this context, the relevant federal rules permit “summary 18 dismissal of claims that are clearly not cognizable.” Neiss v. Bludworth, 114 F.4th 1038, 19 1045 (9th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). But “as long as a petition has any potential merit, it is 20 not so frivolous or incredible as to justify summary dismissal[.]” Id. 21 Gomez Gomez “grew up in El Salvador, where he experienced severe childhood 22 sexual abuse and escalating gang violence.” (ECF 1, at 17.) He “fled to the United States” 23 in “2013,” was placed in “standard [] removal proceedings,” and has since “built a life in 24 California.” (Id. at 18.) On “November 25, 2025,” while driving a route as a “truck driver,” 25 petitioner was “arrested” and “placed in custody.” (Id. at 19.) An immigration judge denied 26 Gomez Gomez bond, based on the Board of Immigration Appeals’ decision in Matter of 27 Yajure Hurtado, 29 I. & N. Dec. 216 (BIA 2025), which held that IJs lack jurisdiction in 28 cases like Gomez Gomez’s. (Id.) He challenges the government’s position that petitioner 1 |}is an “applicant for admission” who is “subject to mandatory detention” under “8 U.S.C. 2 || § 1225.” Ud. at 3.) He asserts that, because he crossed into the United States “in 2013,” he 3 not an applicant for admission, and the governing statute is thus not § 1225, but “8 U.S.C. 4 1226(a),” which would allow his release “on bond or conditional parole.” (/d. at 3, □□□ 5 || 20.) This statutory misclassification, he argues, renders his detention “unlawful.” Ud. at 3.) 6 This challenge has sufficient potential merit to warrant a response. Functionally 7 ||identical cases across the country have been found to have a “likelihood of success on the 8 ||merits” or have resulted in the writ being issued. See, e.g., Barco Mercado v. Francis, F.Supp.3d.__, No. 25-cv-6582 (LAK), 2025 WL 3295903, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 26, 10 2025) (noting that, in “350” of the “362” opinions to address this issue, the petitioners 11 ||“have prevailed, either on a preliminary or final basis,” and these cases were “decided by 12 || over 160 different judges sitting in about fifty different courts”); Mosqueda v. Noem, No. 13 ||5:25-cv-02304 CAS (BFM), 2025 WL 2591530, at *5 (C.D.Cal. Sept. 8, 2025) 14 || (“[P]etitioners are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims because section 1226(a), 15 |/not section 1225(b)(2), likely governs their detention.”); Vazquez v. Feeley, No. 2:25-cv- 16 |}01542-RFB-EJY, 2025 WL 2676082, at *11 (D. Nev. Sept. 17, 2025) (same); Rodriguez 17 || v. Bostock, No. 3:25-cv-05240-TMC, 2025 WL 2782499, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Sept. 30, 18 |}2025) (“[T]he government’s position belies the statutory text of the INA, canons of 19 || statutory interpretation, legislative history, and longstanding agency practice.’’). 20 By December 26, 2025, respondent must answer the petition and respond to the 21 ||injunctive-relief motion. Any reply by petitioner must be filed by January 2, 2026. The 22 || Court will hold oral arguments on the petition and injunctive-relief motion on January 8, 23 2026, at 3:00 p.m. 24 || Dated: December 19, 2025 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 27 28