Abdulgani Davut v. Kristi Noem, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a habeas corpus petition and a motion for a temporary restraining order filed by a petitioner detained by ICE. The court denied the ex parte TRO motion but ordered a response to the petition and issued a limited status quo order prohibiting the petitioner's transfer outside the district.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of ex parte motion for Temporary Restraining Order“Turning to the TRO, the Court denies the ex parte motion.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the preference for notice in TRO proceedings under Rule 65(b) and cited the stringent restrictions on ex parte TROs. By denying the ex parte motion and consolidating it with the merits under Rule 65(a)(2), the court followed standard procedure when no counsel for the respondent had appeared. |
Ordering a response to the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus“Therefore, the Court will order a response to the Petition.” | agree with court The court found that summary dismissal was unwarranted because the allegations were not vague, conclusory, or frivolous. This is a standard procedural step in habeas litigation to allow the respondent to address the claims. |
Issuance of status quo order prohibiting transfer of Petitioner outside the Southern District of California“To maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of California pending the Court’s resolution of the petition.” | agree with court The court cited Doe v. Bondi to support its jurisdiction to issue such an order while the petition is pending. This is a common equitable measure to preserve the court's ability to adjudicate the habeas claim. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the standards for summary dismissal of habeas petitions and the procedural requirements for TROs under Rule 65. It cites appropriate authorities for its decisions and provides clear notice of its intent to consolidate the TRO with the merits. The status quo order is supported by the cited case law.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ABDULGANI DAVUT, Case No.: 3:25-cv-03740-CAB-DDL 12 Petitioner, ORDER: 13 v. (1) REQUIRING RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR A WRIT OF 14 KRISTI NOEM, et al., HABEAS CORPUS [Doc. No. 1]; 15 Respondents. (2) DENYING TEMPORARY 16 RESTRAINING ORDER [Doc. No. 2] 17 18 Petitioner Abdulgani Davut (“Petitioner”) filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”),] and a motion for temporary 20 restraining order, [Doc. No. 2 (“TRO”)]. Petitioner claims that he has been out of custody 21 under an order of supervision until he was unlawfully detained without adequate notice by 22 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) on December 1, 2025. [Petition at 4–5.] 23 Petitioner also seeks to enjoin ICE from removing him to a third country without adequate 24 notice and an opportunity to be heard. [Petition at 12.] 25 Having reviewed the petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at 26 this time. See Kourteva v. INS, 151 F. Supp. 2d 1126, 1128 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (“Summary 27 dismissal is appropriate only where the allegations in the petition are vague or conclusory, 28 1 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). Therefore, the Court will order a 2 response to the Petition. 3 Turning to the TRO, the Court denies the ex parte motion. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b). 4 While temporary restraining orders may be heard in true ex parte fashion (i.e., without 5 notice to an opposing party), the Court’s strong preference is for the opposing party to be 6 served and afforded a reasonable opportunity to file an opposition. See Granny Goose 7 Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 8 U.S. 423, 438–39 (1974) (discussing ex parte temporary restraining orders and their 9 “stringent restrictions”); accord Reno Air Racing Ass’n, Inc. v. McCord, 452 F.3d 1126, 10 1131 (9th Cir. 2006) (same). Though counsel for Petitioner certified that a copy of the 11 Petition and the motion for TRO was emailed to the United States Attorney’s Office, no 12 counsel for Respondents has appeared or been identified. [TRO at 12.] The Court instead 13 provides notice to the parties that it intends to consolidate the TRO with a determination 14 on the merits under Rule 65(a)(2). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(2); see also Slidewaters LLC 15 v. Wash. State Dep’t of Lab. & Indus., 4 F.4th 747, 759 (9th Cir. 2021) (noting the court 16 can invoke Rule 65(a)(2) by giving “clear and unambiguous notice”). 17 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: 18 1. Respondents shall file a response by January 5, 2026. The response must 19 address the allegations in the Petition and the motion for TRO and must include any 20 documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised. 21 2. Petitioner may file a reply by January 7, 2026. 22 3. To maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, servants, 23 employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with 24 Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of 25 California pending the Court’s resolution of the petition.1 26 27 1 See Doe v. Bondi, Case No. 3:25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 28 1 4. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 2 || Office with a copy of the petition and this order. 3 4 Itis SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: December 26, 2025 (yge— 6 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 3g || subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”) (collecting cases).