Ozgur Yalnizkurt v. Christopher Larose, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by an ICE detainee alleging detention without a bond hearing in violation of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, the APA, and 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). The court declined to dismiss the petition summarily and ordered the respondents to file a response, while enjoining the transfer of the petitioner outside the Southern District of California.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Petition for writ of habeas corpus not dismissed summarily“Having reviewed the Petition, the Court finds summary dismissal is unwarranted at this time.” | agree with court The court applied the standard for summary dismissal of habeas petitions, which requires that allegations be vague, conclusory, palpably incredible, or patently frivolous. The order does not recite specific facts from the petition that would meet this high threshold, but it explicitly states that dismissal is unwarranted. This is a procedural determination to allow the case to proceed to a response, which is a standard and defensible initial step in habeas litigation when the petition is facially sufficient. |
Respondents ordered to file a response to the Petition“Respondents must file a response to the Petition no later than January 5, 2026.” | agree with court This is a standard procedural order following the decision not to dismiss a petition. It is consistent with local rules and general practice in habeas cases. |
Petitioner ordered not to be transferred outside the Southern District of California“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 cites Doe v. Bondi to support its jurisdiction to preserve the status quo. This is a common and generally accepted practice in habeas cases to ensure the court retains jurisdiction over the person detained. The order is a temporary measure pending resolution of the petition. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a standard procedural order in a habeas case. It correctly applies the standard for summary dismissal and issues a routine order for a response and a status quo injunction. The reasoning is sufficient for the procedural steps taken.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 OZGUR YALNIZKURT, Case No.: 3:25-cv-3752-CAB-MSB 14 Petitioner, ORDER TO RESPOND 15 v. 16 CHRISTOPHER LAROSE, et al., [Doc. No. 1] 17 Respondents. 18 19 On December 23, 2025, Petitioner Ozgur Yalnizkurt filed a petition for a writ of 20 habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. [Doc. No. 1 (“Petition”).] In his Petition, 21 Petitioner claims that he is being detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement 22 (“ICE”) without a bond hearing in violation of the Fourth Amendment, Fifth Amendment, 23 Administrative Procedure Act, and 8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). [Petition at 6–12.] He seeks 24 immediate release or, at minimum, a bond hearing within 14 days. [Id. at 12–13.] 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 palpably incredible, or patently frivolous or false.”). The Court therefore ORDERS a 1 ||response to the Petition as follows: 2 1. Respondents must file a response to the Petition no later than January 5, 3 ||2026. The response must address the allegations in the Petition and must include any 4 ||documents relevant to the determination of the issues raised in the Petition. 5 2. Petitioner may file a reply by January 8, 2026. 6 3. The Clerk of Court shall provide the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney’s 7 || Office with a copy of the Petition, [Doc. No. 1], and this Order. 8 4. Additionally, to maintain the status quo, Respondents, their officers, agents, 9 ||servants, employees, attorneys, and other persons who act in concert or participation with 10 ||Respondents SHALL NOT transfer Petitioner outside of the Southern District of 11 || California pending the Court’s resolution of the Petition.! 12 It is SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: December 29, 2025 € 14 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ' See Doe v. Bondi, Case No. 3:25-cv-805-BJC-JLB, 2025 WL 1870979, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 11, 2025) 27 (“Federal courts retain jurisdiction to preserve the status quo while determining whether [they have] 28 subject matter jurisdiction over a case and while a petition is pending resolution from the court.”) (collecting cases). 45